Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent meetings of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): The Commission has been meeting all last week. Since the events of which my right hon. and learned Friend gave an account on 9th July, more proposals have been tabled. There was a Soviet proposal on the renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons, and on 12th July there was another Soviet proposal, which will require careful study. There has also been a proposal by Yugoslavia suggesting a partial disarmament agreement.
In addition to these, there have been a number of amendments tabled to the draft resolution which stands in the names of Canada, France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State moved an amendment in the names of these four countries and of Australia to the effect that arrangements for the limitation of nuclear test explosions should be added to the list of principles which the Powers concerned believe should be the basis of a disarmament agreement. This draft resolution has had very strong support.
We expect the Commission to meet again this week before deciding what instructions should be given to its Sub-Committee.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the policy of the Government to support the proposal of the Government of Yugoslavia to try to secure a partial agreement in the event of failure to secure a comprehensive agreement?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We are, of course, prepared to consider this very seriously. It is being looked at at the moment, but I should not like to give a categoric reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman now.

Mr. Beswick: The Joint Under-Secretary will remember that, when the Soviet Russians said they would agree to the Anglo-French proposals for the reduction of from 1 million to 1½ million men, we then took up the position that we should only reduce to the figure stated by the Americans. On 12th July, the Soviet Russians said that they would agree to the American proposals. Will the Joint Under-Secretary say what reason there is for not accepting that suggestion of 12th July?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because the essence of any disarmament agreement, as has so often been pointed out, is control; and a disarmament agreement without effective control would be unrealistic and meaningless.

4. Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will detail the international political problems on which Her Majesty's Government requires to reach a settlement before agreeing to a comprehensive disarmament convention.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government do not require to reach a settlement of any international problem before agreeing to a comprehensive disarmament convention. Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member on 15th February, we have always taken the view that if we can get agreement about disarmament that will of itself contribute to a lessening of tension. But we do not believe that a comprehensive disarmament agreement will ever be carried out unless its provisions take effect pari passu with settlement of outstanding political issues.

Mr. Beswick: If the Government do not want a political settlement before they agree to a disarmament plan, why did the Minister of State say in New York two weeks ago that the reason they could not accept the Russian proposals was that they had not agreed to the prior solution of certain political problems, and to which political problems was he referring?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I think that my right hon. Friend made the position quite clear on 25th April when he said, in answer to the hon. Gentleman:
It is not true to say that we cannot make a start with disarmament before the settlement of outstanding international political issues, but we do not believe that we could carry through a comprehensive disarmament programme, including drastic reductions in forces and armaments, until political problems have been settled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1956; Vol. 551. c. 1767.]

Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question, arising from the many statements that his right hon. Friend has made, as to which political questions he desires to see settled before he can move towards some solution?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have answered that, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he will read my reply and those of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representative on the United Nations Disarmament Commission to propose the cessation of hydrogen bomb stock-piling pending the outcome of the negotiations for a comprehensive disarmament agreement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Minister agree with the statement made by the Minister of State last week that the number of hydrogen bombs is such that we have reached the point of infinite devastation, and, if that be so, is it not desirable to cease these stock piles as soon as possible?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The right hon. and learned Member, who knows a great deal about this subject, will realise that such a system as he proposes would be unenforceable without a system of control within a general agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.E.A.T.O. (ECONOMIC AID)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to strengthen the economic side of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The South East Asia Treaty Organisation Committee of Economic Experts, charged with the study of this and related questions, is holding its third meeting at Bangkok early in September. The international staff of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation in Bangkok has recently been strengthened by the appointment of an official to specialise in economic affairs.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give satisfaction to many people who believe that the only real initiative that we can give in South East Asia and the Far East at present is through economic and not mainly through military action? I hope that every step will be taken to expand our economic help in that area.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted. I hope that successful results may flow from this appointment.

Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if we do what I should like to think we will and step up economic assistance to this area, nothing will be done through the South East Asia Treaty Organisation which will in any way harm the Colombo Plan?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Certainly we will continue to give full support to the Colombo Plan.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative at the United Nations Disarmament Conference to appeal for agreement for the cessation of hydrogen bomb tests, separate from any proposals for agreement on the prohibition of use of present stock-piles of atomic weapons.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the position of Her Majesty's Government fully on 12th July. I have nothing to add to his statement.

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman may have explained it fully, but he did not do so clearly. Is it the position of Her Majesty's Government that, whilst Soviet Russia is prepared to stop hydrogen bomb tests now, we are not?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at what my right hon. Friend said, he will find that the Prime Minister said:
It would no doubt he preferable that this matter"—
that is, the regulating and limiting of test explosions—
should be pursued within the context of a comprehensive agreement on disarmament. For our part, however, we should not exclude other methods of discussion acceptable to those concerned"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 588.]

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the United Nations Disarmament Commission on the Anglo-French proposals for the limitation and eventual abolition of hydrogen bomb tests.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Anglo-French proposals have been expounded by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Disarmament Commission and have received some commendation there. They were not, however, welcomed by the Soviet Representative. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government stand by these proposals and hope that the Soviet Government will come to recognise their merits. Discussions are still proceeding.

Mr. Swingler: As the Prime Minister has now stated that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to deal with this question separately in an attempt to reach some swift agreement on it, will the Minister of State, in the discussions, now make an offer to the other Powers to divorce this question from the other complex problems which have to be solved, in an attempt to reach at the highest level an immediate agreement upon it?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We are looking at this point at the moment. My right hon. Friend has mentioned this already.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON—MOSCOW AIR SERVICES (BERLIN LINK)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken in regard to the proposed air

route between London and Moscow via Berlin.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The suggestion for a link at Berlin between British European Airways Services and those of the Soviet airline was made by the Soviet Government in talks held last November. The proposal raised certain political difficulties which required consultation with other Governments. These consultations were still in progress when it became known that the Soviet Government had invited Pan-American Airways to discuss direct flights between the United States of America and Moscow. We had all along preferred a direct service between London and Moscow, which I hope will now be negotiated with the Soviet authorities.

Mr. Beswick: But the Pan-American flights have nothing whatever to do with the European flights, and in view of the fact that B.E.A. still wants to operate this flight via Berlin to Moscow, and that the only difficulty is that the Foreign Office has refused to negotiate with the East German Administration, will it now cease its head-in-the-sand attitude towards the East German Administration and conclude this agreement?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We have offered, as I have said, to operate direct flights between London and Moscow, and we have offered, as we did in the talks last November, a meeting of services in Helsinki or Vienna, but the Russians insisted on a meeting in Berlin for political reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (FIRST SECRETARIES)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the duties normally performed by officers holding the rank of First Secretary at a major Embassy, indicating those that would be performed by officers of Grade A7, B2 and B3, respectively.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: A Foreign Service Officer with the rank of First Secretary at a large Embassy is normally employed on diplomatic, economic, commercial, information or consular work. There is no fixed principle by which officers of Grades A7, B2 and B3 are allotted to these different types of work. The decision in each case depends upon the


circumstances prevailing at the Embassy and on the exact nature and responsibility of the work, which may vary from time to time.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister telling the House that officers in Grade A and Grade B, with the same diplomatic rank, can be required to perform exactly the same services, although they are paid different salaries and receive different expense allowances?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Probably not exactly the same services. If the hon. Member has any particular case to bring to my attention other than the one he has brought already, I will certainly look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAELI-ARAB DISPUTE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the recent visit of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Middle East, full compliance with the Armistice Agreements have now been secured between Israel and her Arab neighbours; and whether he will make a statement on the present situation on the Israeli-Arab borders.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Security Council Resolution of 4th June, amongst other things, requested the Secretary-General to continue his good offices with the parties with a view to full compliance with the Armistice Agreements and to report to the Security Council as appropriate. I would rather not comment in advance of a report from the Secretary-General.
In answer to the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 9th July.

Mr. Henderson: Can we not at least be told whether the reports in the Press during the last two or three days, to the effect that there have been concentrations of troops on both sides of the border, are correct? Has there been observation by the United Nations Truce Observer and his staff? Can we not be told?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There has been public notification by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the

last day or two that investigations on the spot have revealed no unusual concentration of troops.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the representations made to him by women's organisations concerning the method of appointment of the United Kingdom delegate to the Status of Women Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a suggestion, recently made by the Standing Conference on the Economic and Social Work of the United Nations, that women's non-governmental organisations should be consulted about the appointment of our delegate to the Status of Women Commission. In view of the large number of these organisations, it would be impracticable to consult them, but we shall certainly bear in mind any suggestions they may make.

Mrs. Butler: In view of the fact that in other countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, the Government have no difficulty in consulting non-governmental women's organisations on the appointment of a delegate to this important Commission, could not the Minister find it possible to do that here? There are not so very many non-governmental women's organisations which take a direct interest in the work of the United Nations and of this Commission.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is a considerable number of such organisations. If they will write to us, we will certainly take into account the representations they may make, but I cannot undertake to chase every organisation of this sort.

Mr. Nabarro: Women's place is in the home anyway.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (CARMELO MESSINA)

l3. Mr. du Cann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date or dates he has issued passports to Carmelo Messina.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Passports were granted to Carmelo Messina by Her Majesty's Consul-General at Alexandria on 3rd July, 1933, and by the Foreign Office on 31st October, 1946. The passport issued in 1946 was impounded in 1951 because it had been discovered meanwhile that Signor Messina was not in fact a British subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (CLAIMS)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the basis on which provision is made for submitting to the Hungarian Government British claims under the Foreign Compensation (Hungary) (Registration) Order, 1954, is in conflict with recognised and accepted principles of international justice and will result in the exclusion of certain justified and legitimate British claims; and what action he proposes to take to rectify this position.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. The recent negotiations with the Hungarian Government covered all legitimate claims in respect of expropriation of British property of which the Foreign Office had been notified, either by registration under the Order or otherwise.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Hungarian Government undertook originally to give full compensation for all property expropriated, and could Her Majesty's Government, therefore, take every step within their power to make sure that this promise is fulfilled so far as British subjects are concerned?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Certainly, Sir, so far as British subjects are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (SITUATION)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his discussions with the Turkish Government on the future of Cyprus, he will draw their attention to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, particularly Articles 16, 20 and 21, whereby Turkey recognised the annexation of Cyprus by the United Kingdom and the loss of Turkish and acquisition of British nationality by all Turks choosing to remain in Cyprus, and further

renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting Cyprus and agreed that its future was a matter to be decided by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe the Turkish Government are unaware of the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not use the appeasement of Turkey as an excuse for failing to do the right thing by Cyprus?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir, I will take no action. I am not prepared to reveal any past or future communications with the Turkish Government.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what proposals he made to the Turkish Government in the consultations that he has had with it on the future of Cyprus; and
(2) what further consultations he has had with the United States Government regarding Cyprus.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: It would be contrary to practice to disclose confidential diplomatic exchanges.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that the British Government submitted a series of proposals to Turkey which involved self-determination for Cyprus? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, first, how the British Government had the naivity to imagine that they would be approved by the Turks; and, secondly, what use he made of the good offices of Vice-President Nixon on his visit to Turkey to try to persuade the Turks to accept the proposal?

Mr. Dodds-Perker: I have nothing to add to my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (DETAINED BRITISH SUBJECT)

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assistance or advice has been given by the British representative in Palermo, Italy, to Mr. E. G. Preston, a British subject and a member of the crew of the motor vessel "Padma", which was seized, on a charge of smuggling, by the Italian authorities


on 20th April, 1955; whether he is aware that this man has been held in prison since that date without trial; and whether he will institute inquiries into this matter immediately with a view to his release.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Consul at Palermo has been in close touch from the first with the lawyers appointed by the owners of the "Padma" to defend the crew. From June, 1955, when the lawyers' request for Mr. Preston's release on bail was refused, Her Majesty's Consul repeatedly pressed the local judicial authorities for his release, while Her Majesty's Embassy in Rome made repeated representations to the Italian authorities to that end.

Mr. Preston: was provisionally released on 7th June, 1956, and left Italy for Gibraltar on 12th June.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that this is rather a disgraceful incident of a British crew, about whose arrest there has been serious disagreement, at any rate, in that they denied being within the three-mile limit? Is he aware that the crew, apart from Mr. Preston, have been held in custody for 15 months without being tried? Surely the British representative there could do something to get the Italian authorities to bring these men before the courts and to try them or release them?
Is he further aware that the men are complaining very bitterly about their treatment in prison and that, because of it, some of them have gone on hunger strike as a protest? Does he not think that the British representative in Palermo should take more vigorous action to get this case cleared up?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that most vigorous action was taken, but judicial processes in other countries are not always as swift as in this country, particularly on the charges which were lying in this case.

Mr. Robens: How vigorous have the British Government been on the case? Is it true that a British subject can be kept in prison by the Italian Government for fifteen months without being brought to trial, and that Her Majesty's Government have done little or nothing about it, and in any case with no result?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As I said in my answer, from June, 1955, when the lawyers' request was refused, we have repeatedly pressed the local judicial authorities for his release. In addition, the Ambassador in Rome took this matter up. As I say, judicial processes on the Continent are not always as swift as in this country, and on the charges lying against this crew they are usually slow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (BROADCASTING STATIONS)

Mr. Doughty: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that there is now a sufficient number of broadcasting stations of adequate strength broadcasting to the Middle East news and information of Great Britain and her views and opinion; and if he will make a statement

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Considerable resources are already devoted to broadcasting in the Middle East and except for local freak conditions, there is no important part of the region where a signal from a British station cannot be heard. The use of additional and more powerful equipment which will compete with the growing number of local stations is being investigated as I informed the hon. Baronet the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) on 2nd July.

Mr. Doughty: Is the more powerful equipment now being installed or merely being investigated?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: It is now being investigated. There are also matters of wave-lengths, which are constantly being investigated by myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUBLE EXCHANGE RATE

Mr. Doughty: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has resulted since the Geneva Conference as a result of his representations to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about the necessity of fixing an improved exchange rate between the £ sterling and the rouble, in order to enable persons living in the sterling area to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as tourists.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: None, Sir.

Mr. Doughty: Is my hon. Friend aware that the very artificial rouble rate is putting a complete stop on British tourist traffic between the two countries?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir. The Soviet Government have been left in no doubt about Her Majesty's Government's views that the present rate of exchange is unrealistic and constitutes an obstacle to contacts between the British and Soviet people.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (UNITED STATES GUIDED MISSILES)

Mr. Pitman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the agreement under which guided missiles of the United States Government will have the right of innocent passage through the territorial air of British Commonwealth Territories in the West Indies; and what degree of certainty there is that all such passages will be innocent and their fall harmless.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There are four separate Agreements embodying the terms under which the United States Government may operate the Long Range Proving Ground for Guided Missiles over. British territories in this area. Two Agreements, signed in 1950 and 1952, respectively, have already been published as Command 8109 and Command 8485, and the other two, which were signed on 25th June, 1956, will be published very shortly. The course of the missiles is carefully observed throughout their whole flight and, in the event of any deviation which could endanger life or property, the United States authorities destroy the missile in mid-air.

Mr. Pitman: If they are innocent passages, is there any reason to discriminate between such a missile going over any part of the British Commonwealth? Should we make a corresponding agreement with, say, France to send them from France over Britain? Is it really feasible to stop such missiles? Is it not very similar to the passage of an aircraft carrier three miles out to sea?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I find it difficult to answer those questions without notice. Of course, it is not necessary for the missiles to go over any territory. What

has been negotiated with some other nations are tracking stations to guide and track the missile.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID AND ADVICE

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General if, in view of the recommendations contained in the Law Society's annual report on legal aid, the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, and the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates relative to legal aid, he will now announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government as to bringing into force the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, regarding free legal aid.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. The last word in the Question should read "advice" and not "aid".

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): That makes a very significant alteration to the Question. I was going to say that I assumed that the hon. Member was referring to Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. As he now realises, there are no provisions regarding free legal aid in that part of the Act.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the consensus of opinion among all those best qualified to form an opinion is that it is high time that free legal advice was introduced? Can he say what is the Government's policy about it?

The Attorney-General: That is not accurate. The Annual Report of the Law Society did not recommend the introduction of legal advice, nor did the Select Committee on Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Chronic Bronchitis

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how far the disease of chronic bronchitis, when it accompanies pneumoconiosis, is considered in the assessment of the loss of faculty.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): While chronic bronchitis is not itself prescribed as an occupational disease, where


pneumoconiosis is found to exist, the medical board or medical appeal tribunal, in assessing the disablement, has to take account of the disabling effects of chronic bronchitis to the extent that they are due to or made worse by the presence of pneumoconiosis.

Dr. Stross: May we take it that that answer means that where chronic bronchitis accompanies pneumoconiosis and is thought by the tribunal to be due to it, an assessment for it is added to the assessment for pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my original answer, which I am afraid was long and complicated, makes clear when read, if the bronchitis is the result of pneumoconiosis, it is taken into account in assessing the disability.

Emphysema

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that severe loss of faculty due to emphysema is at times noted in workers exposed to the inhalation of irritating dust and that in these cases the radiological signs may be negligible; and what methods are used to assess the loss of faculty in these cases;
(2) how long it has been the custom to add to the estimated loss of faculty in pneumoconiosis cases an additional percentage for emphysema where this disease is also diagnosed; and what percentage of cases show this added complication.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Emphysema is common among older people and its effects are sometimes severe. In cases where they result from a disease prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act, the medical board or medical appeal tribunal has always made allowance for them in its assessments, but there are no statistics of such cases. If there is no prescribed occupational disease, no question arises of an assessment in respect of emphysema.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that in South Africa, for example, emphysema alone, with no radiological evidence of pneumoconiosis, amongst workers who are subjected to irritating dust, such as quartz dust, is accepted as disabling and due to the occupation? Has he noticed

that in some cases where the medical boards assess emphysema as existing with pneumoconiosis, sometimes a monetary allowance is added and sometimes not? Could he explain this difference in attitudes towards different cases?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly cannot comment, particularly without notice, on South African legislation, but I think it is clear that, in the present light of medical knowledge, emphysema does not come within the definition contained in Section 55 of the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister said, "In the present light of medical knowledge." As it is nearly 20 years since the present criteria of pneumoconiosis were arrived at, after full investigation by the Medical Research Council, in view of all the investigations which have taken place since, including that of the pneumoconiosis unit of the hospital in Cardiff, does not the Minister think that the time has come for another review, since conflicting decisions are given, particularly by coroners' courts and medical boards, and the whole situation is confusing? Will he consider setting up, through the Medical Research Council or in some other way, a competent body to review this matter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Medical Research Council is at present conducting research on respiratory disability, including emphysema, among older men.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Medical Research Council be empowered to consider whether the present definition is adequate to meet existing circumstances, and, if it is not, will it be empowered to make recommendations for a change?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very much doubt, without notice, whether such recommendations would be within the remit of the Medical Research Council, which is engaged in an examination of the disability itself. When we get its Report, then will be the stage for considering whether the sort of action the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is appropriate.

Dr. Stross: In view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I will raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

War Pensioners (Deaths)

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of deaths of war disablement pensioners from 1945 until the nearest convenient date, and also separate the figures of those whose pensions derived from the South African, 1914–18, 1939–45 and subsequent wars.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: From 1st January, 1945, to 31st March, 1956, the total number of deaths of war disablement pensioners was 164,000. 122,000 were pensioners of the 1914–18 and earlier wars and 42,000 of the 1939–45 war and of later years. I am afraid that no further sub-division of the figures is available.

Mr. McKibbin: In view of the substantial figures, which will no doubt show a rapid increase in the next few years, does my right hon. Friend not consider that the time has now come to give immediate consideration to the British Legion's claim for an increase in the basic rate before it is too late?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That raises issues very much wider than those in the original Question.

Family Allowances

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is prepared to consider extending the period in which family allowances may be drawn from the present six months to twelve months to correspond with the period for which the book is issued and so avoid hardships where parents endeavour to save allowances over a period and then find some are out of date.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that a limit of six months is unreasonable for the cashing of a weekly order intended mainly to help with current family maintenance. But I will gladly consider any difficulties which my hon. Friend may feel have arisen.

Mr. McKibbin: Does my hon. Friend not consider that more publicity should be given to this six months' period as busy "captive Mums" have neither the time nor the inclination to read instructions? I know of one who has lost

£28 16s., and I should like to know what happens to the "Mums" missed money.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Notice is given not only on the book itself, but on the individual order. I doubt whether it is really possible to make it clearer than that, but I will gladly consider any suggestion.

Postponed Retirements (Benefits)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what financial advantage accrues to a pensioner who retires at 70 years of age for his five extra years at work and for the contributions paid by him for that period if he receives National Assistance, compared with his position had he retired at 65 years of age.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Apart from five extra years of earnings, a pensioner such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind will have increased his own retirement pension by 15s. a week, and if he has a wife will also have increased her pension by 10s. a week, and by 15s. a week if and when he leaves her a widow. As a result, in general, he will not need to resort to National Assistance.

Mr. Oliver: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his Answer means that, after a pensioner has worked for five years, he gets no advantage whatsoever and is at a decided disadvantage in respect of National Assistance as compared with what his position would have been had he ceased work at 65? In view of the fact that the pensioner pays a contribution of about £87 in the five years he is at work and saves the Fund £845 by Hot drawing on it, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether some portion of his pension may be disregarded?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the figures to which the retirement pension is raised are, in general, above the Assistance scales and, therefore, the deduction which the hon. and learned Member draws from the figures is not sound. The difficulty about disregards is that the more one increases National Assistance disregards, the more one runs the risk of concentrating relief where, ex hypothesi, it is least needed.

Industrial Injuries and Retirement Pensions

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what figure the Industrial Injuries Benefit of 67s. 6d. and the Married Retirement Pension of 65s. would require to be raised to compensate for the rise in the cost of living since these sums were first fixed in December, 1954.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the basis of the Retail Prices Index, to 72s. 11d. and to 70s. 3d., respectively.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister realise that that means a serious drop since the last increase was made for millions of poor people living in the greatest poverty? Can he not say, taking all these things into consideration, that the time has now arrived when something should be done to help these poor old pensioners who are living in such dire circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will, of course, be aware of the fact that the figures turn entirely on the year selected as a base for the calculations. As he probably knows, quite different results can be obtained if other years, such as 1950 or 1951, are taken.

Tobacco Token Scheme

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to the abolition of the tobacco token scheme and a corresponding increase in retirement pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 4th June.

Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Financ Secretary to the Treasury has condemned this scheme in extremely strong terms and that therefore there can hardly be a more appropriate moment for having consultation of this kind?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is always a pleasure to have consultation with my right hon. Friend on this or, indeed, any subject, but, as I said, the rates of retirement benefit and other benefits turn on many more factors than the tobacco token.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Small Surface Mines

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many small surface mines exist in the United Kingdom; and what is the average annual production of coal from such mines.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. David Renton): There are about 500 licensed small mines producing together about 2 million tons of coal a year.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to include those who work in small surface mines in all schemes of welfare and superannuation promoted by the Board.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. The men employed at small mines licensed by the National Coal Board already benefit from the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, and there are arrangements under which small mine licensees can arrange for their workers to participate in the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, the application of those arrangements to a particular mine being a matter for negotiation between the employers and workers concerned.

Mr. Swingler: As the workers in the small mines make a valuable contribution to coal production, would it not be an advantage to put their conditions on a basis entirely equal to that of the workers in deep mines? If the N.C.B. would take the initiative, would it not be possible to extend a uniform basis of the welfare and superannuation conditions introduced for mine workers in the deep mines to the small mine workers?

Mr. Renton: Workers in the small mines are already to a great extent on the same basis as miners employed by the National Coal Board. That is due to the fact that, for most of the small mines, there are attached to the licence conditions to the effect that conditions relating to wages and hours of work and so on agreed between the National Coal Board and its employees shall be observed.

Miss Herbison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in one instance, there is a very great difference? Is he aware that ex-miners who have spent


most of their working lives in the mines and, perhaps, the last few in a licensed mine do not get concessionary coal when they have to stop work, whereas those who spend all their time working for the N.C.B. do get it in the last few years? Is he aware that that makes a very great difference to a man living on the old-age pension?

Mr. Renton: That is a separate question of which I should wish to have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Guided Missiles

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply which of the guided missiles, now designed and constructed in the United States of America, it is proposed to arrange to produce in this country; and when application to that end will be made to the Government of the United States of America.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to his Question on 27th June, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes: That was completely unsatisfactory, which is why I put down the Question again. Can the Minister say whether his intention is to endeavour to rationalise on these matters as between the N.A.T.O. Powers, and particularly as between ourselves and the United States, instead of wasting our manpower doing what has already been done across the ocean?

Mr. Maudling: I keep that point very much in mind. It is not quite so easy as it sometimes seems to manufacture in this country something designed in America. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if ever an opportunity presents itself where it is of practical value to make over here an American weapon, we shall not be deterred by what the Americans call a "not-invented-here" complex.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply how far it is the policy of his Department, with regard to guided missiles, to compete with our Allies or to pool designs and resources as far as possible with all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, especially with the United States of America.

Mr. Maudling: As regards co-operation with the United States, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to his Question on 3rd May last. So far as other N.A.T.O. countries are concerned, it is our policy to co-operate as far as we can, and arrangements have been made this year to provide in the United Kingdom courses of instruction in the basic principles of guided weapon design and operation for scientists from other N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister not aware that arrangements with the United States of America have recently been made so that what is called enriched uranium can be made available both to us and other European countries? As the next step to a warhead is not insuperably great, can he not give us a more positive assurance that something will be done to persuade the United States to be more co-operative in this matter?

Mr. Maudling: This is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred before. I appreciate his interest in the matter, which is very important, as he says.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sugar Board (Chairman)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now announce the name of the Chairman of the Sugar Board.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): At the invitation of my right hon. Friend, Sir George Dunnett, K.B.E., C.B., a Deputy Secretary in my Department, has accepted the chairmanship of the Sugar Board. He will leave the service of the Department when he assumes his new duties as Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Hill: Can my hon. Friend say when Sir George Dunnett will assume his duties, and also when the appointed day will be?

Mr. Nicholls: It is expected that Sir George will assume his new duties at the end of the summer, and I think my right hon. Friend will be able to make an announcement about the appointed day in the early autumn.

Mr. Nabarro: While completely endorsing this appointment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—may I ask if my hon. Friend can say whether this distinguished civil servant will be in receipt of a full civil servant's pension in addition to the salary and emoluments he receives as Chairman of the Sugar Board?

Mr. Nicholls: He will be on what is known as the approved employment terms, which means that he will sever his connection with the Civil Service, but will carry with him the pension rights he has up to the date when he leaves the Civil Service.

Potato Marketing Board

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the Potato Marketing Board, under prescriptive Resolution No. 4 of 1956, is levying on each registered producer a sum equal to 20s. per acre of potatoes planted for harvesting in 1956; and why he approved this levy.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The Potato Marketing Board has power under Section 84 of the Potato Marketing Scheme to determine the contributions to be made by registered producers to the Board. My right hon. Friend's approval is not required.

Mr. Collins: Does the Minister realise that this levy will bring in nearly £750,000, which will be sufficient to pay the growers' share of a subsidy of nearly £14 million? In view of the fact that the acreage this year is roughly the same as it was last year, when there was a shortage of potatoes, does the hon. Gentleman think there is likely to be much subsidy needed? If not, will he have a word with the Potato Marketing Board on the question of keeping £750,000 of growers' money doing nothing?

Mr. Nugent: This levy is raised primarily to pay for the administrative expenses of the Board.

Mid-Wales Land Investigation (White Paper)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government propose to publish the White Paper giving their views on the Report of

the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission on their Mid-Wales Investigation.

Mr. Nugent: A White Paper is being published today.

Mr. Moyle: Will there be a debate on the White Paper before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Nugent: I do not think so. I should expect that in any event right hon. and hon. Members would like to read the White Paper first.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Day Nurseries (Welfare Milk)

Miss Vickers: asked the Minister of Health whether he will bring the allowance of welfare milk in day nurseries into line with that which will be available in future in nursery schools.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): Yes, Sir. The allowance of welfare milk in day nurseries will be ⅓ pint per child daily from the 1st September next.

Miss Vickers: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether this milk will be free and if it will be in addition to the cheap milk allowed to the mother?

Mr. Turton: It will be free and in addition to the cheap milk.

Maternity Services Committee (Evidence)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the published announcement by the Secretary of the Maternity Services Committee that only written representations will be accepted, he will issue instructions to the committee that it shall receive oral evidence and interview any persons wishing to give such evidence.

Mr. Turton: I understand that the Committee will ask for oral evidence after examining the written material submitted to them: but this is a matter entirely within the Committee's discretion.

Mr. Freeth: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if he is aware that the published statement which appeared in the Press gave the impression that the Committee was not preparing to receive oral


evidence at all and that greatly distressed a large number of nursing midwives who felt that they were being overlooked? May I say how glad they will feel that the Committee has reconsidered its decision?

Mr. Turton: I am sorry that that impression got about. It is, in fact, the normal practice of all committees to wish to see a written statement before inviting oral evidence and, in the announcement mentioned, it was therefore not exceptional in this case.

Doctors (Pay)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds he refuses to disclose the increases in doctors' pay asked for by the British Medical Association.

Mr. Turton: Because, so far, there has been no claim published by the profession. The communication on this subject has been only in the form of a preliminary memorandum sent to my Department and to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. To this a reply has now been sent stating that, in present circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I would not feel justified in giving consideration to any claim for a general increase in medical remuneration.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Before we can decide whether that reply was justified or not, can we not be told what the doctors asked for? Why all this secrecy? If trade unionists want something the whole world knows about it; why cannot we be told what the doctors want?

Mr. Turton: There has been no claim published by the profession. As I said last week, I must act in accordance with what I believe is the proper procedure in this matter and not anticipate publication when I have received what is in fact only a draft memorandum.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Mrs. Harriet Thornton

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the independent medical examination of Mrs. Harriet Thornton, who has been detained in a

mental home for the past three years, if he can yet state when she is to be discharged.

Mr. Turton: The result of the medical examination has not yet been reported to the Board of Control.

Mr. Dodds: Since Mrs. Thornton has been examined on two different occasions by two doctors, how long is it anticipated it will be before a decision is reached when the result of that examination can be taken to the Board of Control, because this lady is getting very anxious?

Mr. Turton: That is a matter for the Board of Control. The Board of Control may order a patient to be discharged at the expiration of ten days from the date of authorisation of the independent medical examination. That ten days had already elapsed on 9th July, and, therefore, it will be at the discretion of the Board to order a discharge after receiving the result of the examination; but it is entirely in the discretion of the Board.

Mr. H. A. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point of order arising out of this Question and a Question on 2nd July when, in a supplementary question, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) referred to
a cruel husband
who wanted
to get rid of an unwanted wife. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 987.]
It so happens that the husband in this case is a constituent of mine and I should like to read a short letter I have received from him as the basis of the point I want to raise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not allow that now. This is a matter of fact; it is not a point of order at all.

Staff Recruitment

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the annual cost of advertisements for porters, nurses and domestic staff, respectively, in the hospital service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I regret it is not possible to give separate figures.

Mr. Hastings: Does the hon. Lady realise what difficulties local hospitals have, especially in the Greater London area, in getting and keeping staff, particularly porters and domestic staff? Although she cannot give the figures, does she realise that a vast amount is spent on advertising and that if only wages were comparable with what can be obtained in ordinary industry, all that would be saved and much better staff would be obtained in the hospitals under her control?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I appreciate that quite a considerable sum is spent on advertising, but I think the hon. Member is a little optimistic if he thinks we should get over what is a very real staff shortage, particularly in the southern and London areas, by his proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Further Education (Contributions)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the concern arising from the issuing of Circular No. 307; and, in view of the need for encouraging further education, if he will give consideration to withdrawing the circular.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My right hon. Friend is encouraging further education, but he thinks it reasonable that students aged 21 or over should pay at least 10s. a term towards the cost of providing a part-time day or evening class. He does not therefore intend to withdraw the circular.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister saying that the country's finances are in such a horrible mess after five years of Tory rule that the Government have to charge extra for further education? This is trifling in comparison with the finances of the nation, but it can mean so much to individuals. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Kent Education Committee estimates that 10 per cent. of the students will drop out because of what has happened? Will he explain why the Minister gave education authorities such short notice that many of them have to call special meetings?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member may not be clear that this circular refers almost entirely to non-vocational classes. I do not think it is unreasonable that a fee of 10s. a term, or approximately 10d. a week, should be charged for non-vocational courses. I regret the short notice, but my right hon. Friend is willing to consider cases where that is causing difficulty.

Mr. Dodds: Why was there short notice?

Mr. M. Stewart: Can the hon. Gentleman say not only that he regrets the short notice but whether there is any justification for it? Also, if he wants to hide behind the fact that this relates mainly to non-vocational courses, may I ask whether he remembers that his right hon. Friend gave me an answer recently when he said that he was making plans for the purpose of encouraging liberal education?

Mr. Vosper: In answer to the second part of the Question, I repeat that 10s. a term should not discourage liberal education. The reason for the short notice is that it was necessary to get out this circular for the autumn term. Had it been delayed longer, it would have been necessary to wait a further year.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend put this matter into its correct perspective and say what one of these courses costs and, therefore, how much is borne by public funds, being the difference between 10s. and the actual cost of the course? Secondly, would my hon. Friend not agree that the former charge of only 5s. per term was grossly inadequate and unrelated to present monetary values?

Mr. Vosper: The only information I can give to my hon. Friend is that, in the circular, it was stated that the cost of further education to local authorities was about £32 million a year, of which fees represented only £2·5 million.

Mr. Lindgren: If the Government are trying to induce industry not to raise prices, why is the Ministry of Education, as a Government Department, itself raising prices? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that to young workers even 5s. is a considerable sum which has its effect when trade unions come to negotiate wage claims?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member speaks of young workers, but this circular refers to workers over the age of 21, and these fees represent only a very small proportion of the total cost of providing the courses.

Mr. Redhead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the many educational settlements affiliated to the Educational Centres Association are gravely disturbed that work of great social importance may be brought to an end by the deterrent that this increase is likely to have?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend is discussing this matter this afternoon with the L.C.C. He has also said that hardship may be taken into account for remission of fees.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council, to whom he has referred, regards this circular with consternation? Is he further aware that the L.C.C. regards it as a great blow to the cause of liberal education, which it has been building up over many years for the working men and women in the Metropolis? In view of the protests that this circular has received all over the country, will not the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend is giving the London County Council an opportunity to put that point of view this afternoon. I have no doubt that he will take into account its views as well as those of the hon. Member.

Mr. Nicholson: Do not the questions from hon. Members opposite reflect an entire lack of any sense of proportion?

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that most of these classes in London are attended, in their spare time, by men and women who are trying to extend their educational background, and that the effect of this circular over the course of a year is to raise the cost by 200 per cent.? In view of that fact, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that the Minister should have another look at the matter and withdraw this circular until later on?

Mr. Vosper: In the first place, the fees in London are considerably below the level for the rest of the country. In the second place, the hon. Member may not

have observed in the circular that, where the increase will more than double the fees, it can be made over a period of two years.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister not aware that the indecent haste with which these extra charges are being imposed casts grave doubt everywhere among education authorities of the Minister's sincerity in claiming to be in favour of further education? Is the hon. Gentleman not further aware that these classes are of especial value to the lowest paid workers and pensioners, and folk of that kind, to whom every increase in the cost of living comes? As the Minister is, therefore, contributing to putting the squeeze on the lowest paid workers, who get the greater value from this kind of education, will he not reconsider the statements he has made about the policy of further education?

Mr. Vosper: I do not dispute that these courses are of value to the lowest paid worker. If, in fact, the lowest paid workers cannot pay the free of 10s. a term on the grounds of hardship, remission can be made.

Commander Agnew: In view of the agitation which this matter has raised among the Opposition, is not this a suitable subject for them to give up a Supply Day in order to have a rather fuller debate?

Mr. Speaker: This really is becoming a debate.

TOBACCO (ANGLO-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT)

Mr. Russell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations took place with the Governments of tobacco-growing Commonwealth countries before the agreement with the United States of America of 5th June, 1956, was concluded.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): The Government have been in consultation throughout the negotiations with the Governments of the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Mr. Russell: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in fact, this is going


to damage the tobacco output from Southern Rhodesia or any other Colonial territory in any way whatever?

Commander Noble: The Commonwealth countries concerned raised the same point, but we were able to give them an assurance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1956–57

CLASS VI

Vote 8. Ministry of Labour and National Service

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £13,714,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including expenses in connection with employment exchanges and the inspection of factories; expenses, including grants and loans, in connection with employment services, training, transfer, rehabilitation and resettlement; expenses in connection with national service; repayment of loan charges in respect of employment schemes; expenses of the Industrial Court and the Industrial Disputes Tribunal; a subscription to the International Labour Organisation; and sundry other services.—[£7,069,000 has been voted on account.]

FACTORIES ACTS (ADMINISTRATION)

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Whether we are in mortal peril of poverty by stages, or whether we are to double our living standards in the next twenty-five years—and who am I to discuss in detail these trifling issues which separate the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal?—I nevertheless suggest that the time has certainly come when the people of this country should get their priorities right in connection with our industrial problems.
The Report of the Industrial Safety Sub-Committee of the Ministry of Labour's National Joint Advisory Council is a document which reveals that, indeed, many of these priorities are quite wrong at the moment. For instance, they show that injuries to workers cost us about 20 million man days per year, which is a very startling figure. They


show that accidents reported under the Factories Acts cost us over 700 workers killed, 180,000 injured and 60,000 people absent from work each day. I will try to examine some of the causes in a moment.
I suggest that when we see that sort of figure and place it against the 3 million or 3¼ million working days lost per annum in industrial disputes, with all the excitement that those disputes occasion, it really shows that we are not paying anything like sufficient attention to the very serious causes of this great loss, described as about 20 million man-days a year, as distinct from the time lost in industrial disputes.
I do not attempt to minimise the importance of that, but, as I began by saying, I think we should try to get these matters into their correct perspective. Indeed, if we look a little further into the sickness which deprives the nation of about 280 million man-days per annum it is obvious that—although we cannot break down that figure to show how much—a very big percentage is caused by illness accruing from working conditions. Looked at in that way, the question of the amount of time which a nation is losing is seen in far better perspective.
I know that the Ministry itself, no matter how effective or efficient it becomes, can never be a substitute for efficient safety organisation within the factories themselves. For many years I had the privilege of being a member of what, I think, was one of the most effective safety committees in Britain. I do not suggest that it owed its effectiveness to my being a member—it probably did a lot better when it got rid of me—but at least I did learn in the course of that type of work how much improvement there can be within a factory if those sensible things which occur to practised and experienced men and women in industry are put into operation. The Report which I have mentioned comments very rightly on the need for safety committees in all types of work places, irrespective of their size or of the type of work done.
We find that the accidents which cause most loss of time are not actually connected with mechanisation as such. They are the result of such things as falling bodies, lifting castings and the like, which have been placed in the wrong position. I recall from the time when I was a

member of the committee to which I have referred so many accidents which should have been avoided, caused by such things as light distributed in such a way as to leave shadows in places where there should not be any; trucks not placed within broad white lines; handles of trucks sticking out over gangways.
To deal with such matters is within the competence, not only of those who are members of safety committees but of the average adult person working in a factory who should, I think, make himself responsible in that way, and should certainly make himself responsible for showing inexperienced people just where they are going wrong in the course of their work. One can think, almost with horror, of having watched an apprentice with a defective spanner pulling on a nut, with both feet together and nothing to fall back on except a lathe upon which he could get a cracked head. It is so easy for the experienced man to suggest a different weight distribution—one foot behind the other—which makes such a very big difference.
For years we have talked about files without handles and other elementary things, but something else which causes a very great deal of lost time is the guards that are made for machinery. For my sins, I worked for a long time on piece work. I know that when cumbersome guards are put on machines—milling machines, punches, etc.—and the piece work price is fixed, it is almost certain that very soon afterwards that guard will come off in order that the man can increase his earnings. I suggest that the people who design these guards really should take account of the fact that unless these guards can be used without loss of piece work earnings—without loss of efficiency to the firm, in fact—much of their value will be negatived, because the men do not wish to use them. So many accidents result from that sort of practice.
Again, all who are conversant with factory life have seen the awful business of the first-aid box being so often in the care of a man whose job is dirty. I believe that those boxes are a menace in themselves. They merely serve to keep people from the ambulance stations to which they should go. They go, instead, to the first-aid box. On a previous occasion I told the House that we were once troubled by the incidence of sepsis.


After extensive research we discovered that it invariably came about as a result of a man going first to the Red Cross box and then deciding that as he already had a dressing on his wound he had no need to go to the ambulance room. We abolished the boxes and the number of such cases was immediately reduced. I should have thought that the time had now come when we could do away with these things, except, perhaps, to put them in museums as evidence of our first elementary thinking on the subject. Otherwise, they serve no useful purpose now.
I want to turn to the Factory Inspectorate itself, and to deal, first, with a very specific section of it which is rarely mentioned. I refer to the Canteen Advisory Service, which was set up by Ernest Bevin in 1941 and which did wonderful work during the war in advising firms on the setting up of canteens. This scheme has expanded enormously, and I understand that there are now about 20,000 canteens upon which the Service advises. I understand, indeed, that it does a remarkably fine job in connection with countries within the Colombo Plan, which are being advised on canteen equipment and arrangement.
I have heard a disquieting rumour that the economy measures which are to be taken may well include economising at the expense of the Canteen Advisory Service. I was a little happier when I read the Minister's reply to a Question put to him by one of my hon. Friends, in which the Minister said that the Factory Inspectorate would not suffer in any way by these cuts. I take it that he was referring also to the Canteen Advisory Service, which is a part of the Inspectorate. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us something about this Service and to assure us that it is not to suffer any cuts.
The full establishment of the main Inspectorate is 380 but, of course, the number available for actual practice is only about 314. If we take the numbers engaged in training others, the incidence of sickness and of annual leave, it will be seen that the full complement can never be in the field at any one time. This force has to cover about 340,000 work places under the Factories Acts—

over 1,000 work places per inspector. In 1954, the inspectors were able to achieve only some 50 per cent. of their programme of factory visits. That was because there was an insufficient number of inspectors to enable the level of inspection to be raised.
I recall that some time ago I asked the Minister a Question about the number of inspections per inspector, and I was a little alarmed to find that the number was diminishing. I should like to know the reason for that. It is most vital that we should know why it is that the number of inspections per inspector is falling. Then we have the old problem of the numbers within the Inspectorate who possess technical or scientific degrees. In pre-war days the percentage varied between 60 and 70 per cent. Since the war, of course, it has fallen quite alarmingly, and I understand that among more recent entries it is now down to about 16 per cent.
Before the war, about 70 per cent. of the inspectors had some industrial experience. I understand that the number has now fallen to below 50 per cent. Out of 79 in the basic grade, I believe that only nine have such qualifications, while not one has a qualification in civil engineering. This is a vital issue. We are entering a period when industry is expanding, when the more technical aspects of production will predominate, and it is vital that, instead of seeing a diminishing percentage of people possessing technical qualifications, we should be aiming at an even higher ratio than we ever had in pre-war days.
I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us about this. I know that the issue has been raised before, but I do not apologise for raising it again, since I believe that it is a vital matter which the House of Commons must take into account. As industry becomes more complex, surely it is essential that we should have more people possessed of the necessary qualifications to give them the power to understand precisely what is happening in industry.
On 26th June this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked the Minister of Labour how many inspectors there were with university degrees in engineering, chemistry or physics in the 95 districts. The Minister told him that there are now 96


districts, that of these 36 have no inspectors with the qualifications in question and 11 have more than one such inspector. In 1939, when there were 92 districts, the corresponding figures were 24 and 23. Although we know that efforts have been made to bring the Inspectorate up to its authorised strength, quantitatively, there has been no announced plan for increasing the numbers so that their duties may be adequately discharged.
May I turn to the Inspectorate and its establishment? I have given the figure of 380 as the full complement, and I know that for a considerable period it has not been possible to reach that number. Recently, we have reached the point at which we are within a few of the full establishment. I suggest to the Minister that it is now perfectly obvious that the establishment of the Inspectorates is nothing like large enough. I have given the figures of the factories which each has to look after, and I have pointed out that the inspectors have not managed to complete more than 50 per cent. of their obligations in this respect.
I do not believe that at any foreseeable time an establishment of 380 can hope to cope with the work which now falls to them, and I therefore make the point most seriously that the Minister must now consider a substantial increase. I should have thought that double the Inspectorate would by no means be too large and that on the question of technical qualifications, at least 50 per cent. of the Inspectorate should be possessed of such qualifications.
I should like to raise one or two issues on specific points which have arisen within the last year or so. The Minister knows that the Keighley accident, in which eight people were burned to death and three were injured, aroused a great deal of anxiety throughout the country. It is a vital issue about which we must ask the Minister more questions. I applaud the open and very frank way in which the Factories Department and the Parliamentary Secretary himself faced the issues which arise from the Keighley accident. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) raised the issue on 18th May in what I think was a very responsible speech; he did not seek to make political capital out of it; he wanted the facts and he himself gave us some important facts.
In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary was forthcoming, and I applaud him for it. That debate, however, coupled with subsequent statements and information, makes one extremely apprehensive about the manner in which those sections of the Factories Acts which deal with the dangers of fire are being carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the factories which should have fire alarms installed; in fact, have not got them. That is fantastic—70 per cent. of the factories concerned entirely without fire alarms which, under the Acts, it is essential that they should have. I know that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary intimated that the Chief Inspector of Factories had ordered a survey to be undertaken throughout the country. That is a huge task; the figure which the Parliamentary Secretary gave was 40,000 to 50,000 places of employment.
Because the Inspectorate is too small—I return to the point I made about the size of the establishment—to perform such a task whilst carrying out its usual duties, the Minister has found it necessary to enlist the services of officers from his local employment exchanges who, of course, have no basic qualifications for this task. The fact that the present deplorable condition exists, coupled with the need to use people from other branches of the Ministry of Labour, proves conclusively that the establishment is far too small and must immediately be made far bigger.
Compliance with the standards laid down by the Acts for escapes from fire is in the hands of the local authorities. It is their function to issue the certificates in this connection. In very many areas, especially the rural areas, where the sanitary inspectors are the only people who can do this job, it is true to say that no certificates have ever been issued, while in quite large urban areas—I think in London itself—the number issued is very small indeed as a percentage of the places of employment which are subject to this part of the Act.
I suggest that this shows, especially in the case of local authorities which are not in large areas, that they are not performing these duties satisfactorily. The Minister has power, I know, when he is certain that a local authority is not doing its job, to authorise the inspectors to do it themselves, but, of course, such a delay


presupposes that the workers concerned are, in the meantime, exposed to very great risks. The question therefore arises whether the local authorities, especially the small ones, are the right people to undertake this very serious and onerous work. Possibly the solution would be to give the task to the district inspectors in the first place and for them to charge the local authorities with any expense involved in the work. I throw out that suggestion to the Minister.
May I say a word about fire prevention officers, who function in conjunction with the local authorities? I think they can play a vital rôle in this very important matter, which the Keighley accident brought to public notice. Of course, officers of this type are purely advisory and cannot enter factories unless invited to enter by the owners. Of course, we all know what happens. The man who is proud of his factory invites the inspector to see what a first-class job of work he has done in fire prevention, but the person who is not too sure, or, worse still, the one who is almost certain that he has not complied with the regulations, is the very one who will not invite the fire officer to go in at all.
Therefore, in this respect, we should consider whether inspectors should not now be allowed to call upon the services of the fire prevention officers irrespective of any invitation from the employers. It is not a lot of good, I suggest, to have at our disposal qualified men, able to do a good job in this direction, unless we make it possible for them to act in their particular capacity. I should have thought that, especially while the establishment of the Factory Inspectorate itself was so low, it would be a very good thing indeed if we gave to the inspectors the power to co-ordinate their work with the fire prevention officers, and be able to take them along with them when they go to places of the types which I have mentioned.
The Factories Acts themselves are based largely not on the prevention of fire, but on trying to make certain that when a fire takes place the workers can get out of the building. There again, maybe we should be going into fire prevention in a far bigger way than we do in regarding the essential task of the inspectors as being to make sure that the workers can get away. Referring again

to the Keighley case, the thought arises that if that case disclosed a sort of typical approach, then the position is much worse than has appeared to be the case up to now.
What really happened? I understand that an inspector visited the mill in November, 1951, and that a follow-up letter was sent about the absence of a fire alarm. Five subsequent visits by the inspector took place, and at the end of these five visits there was still no fire alarm.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): It should be stated, in fairness to the present inspector, that it was a different one who made the original inspection, and that that fact may account for the lack of knowledge on the part of the present inspector.

Mr. Lee: I accept that. I am not trying to make a point against any person at all, but only trying to find out how the Ministry is handling this problem.
Five visits were made by a factory inspector after the letter had been sent informing the employer that he really must instal a fire alarm. In spite of all that, no prosecution took place until after the fire and consequent fatalities.

Mr. Victor Collins: They never do.

Mr. Lee: This is an issue upon which we must press the Minister. It may be that this is an exception, or it may be that a series of this sort of accident took place without any follow up. What frightens us is that this may be typical of the way in which we are handling this matter. If that is the case, thousands of workers—I do not wish to alarm anybody—are subjected to the same sort of risks which brought about an awful tragedy in the mill at Keighley. No prosecution took place until after all this had happened.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether that is typical of the sort of action which is taken by his Ministry when certification has been refused and when the employers concerned have refused to comply with the demands of the Ministry. In replying to the Adjournment debate which my hon. Friend initiated on 18th May, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of action taken to obtain


the installation of fire alarms. He was then referring to the Chief Inspector's letter and that kind of thing. I should like to ask him whether he is now in a position to report on any progress made in consequence of actions which have been taken subsequent to the Keighley fire.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that his Ministry was considering introducing new regulations dealing with highly inflammable materials in factory construction, and my hon. Friend made quite a point of this in his speech. I had a little experience of the Factory Department of the Ministry in my day there, and I know that the Department is very careful about the introduction of regulations, and is probably right in most instances. I am a great admirer of the people who are in executive positions in the Factory Department, and nothing that I say today should be taken as meaning anything else, but I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can now tell us what is the result of their thinking on this question of new regulations.
I have said that, so far, we have been concerned with getting workers away. Of course, in very many of these old buildings there are the most inflammable materials, in the case of which, once a spark has set them off, there is nothing that one can do about it. I should have thought that we should now be in a position to try to prevent these things happening by stipulating the type of material which should be used in the construction of these factories. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Ministry has come to any conclusion about new regulations on this alarming question of fire prevention?
I do not wish to go into detail about accidents in various industries, which I had hoped to talk about. I thought that it was important that the points which I have tried to make should be brought out on this occasion. I hope the Minister will take it as the opinion of those of us on this side of the House that the Inspectorate itself must now be enlarged—I would say doubled, but certainly enlarged very considerably—and that the number of people qualified with a technical degree must be increased.
I know what the obstacle is; it is the question of pay. I believe it is true to say that in the Factory Inspectorate

people with technical qualifications are receiving salaries about £100 less than similar people in other sections of the Civil Service. If that is the case, it is ridiculous to expect people to work under those conditions. I do not now appeal to the Minister of Labour, although I know the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, but I say to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the nation is alarmed about this shortage of factory inspectors and of people with technical qualifications. No economy can be considered as a proper economy if we are, as a result, denuding the Factory Inspectorate of the technical staff which it so badly needs.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to make the most vigorous efforts to enlarge the Inspectorate and to get more people with technical qualifications. I hope that the Government will adopt a more realistic approach than that of a cheese-paring policy towards the factory inspectors, because if we can have that broader approach, based on the knowledge that these men are vital to the efficiency of industry, we shall make progress, and without it we shall continue to lose thousands of man-hours which otherwise could be saved.
I have not referred to the pain and suffering which is caused to those who are the victims of accidents, and which is in itself a tremendous subject. I believe that, when we talk about trade gaps and our industry being on the down grade, and so on, it is useless, almost hypocritical, to say that we are doing everything we can to rectify the position while accidents of the type which I have tried to describe are taking place.

4.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): In recent years there have been great advances in medical knowledge and skill and, as a result, many people are daily being restored to active and healthy life after illnesses and accidents which, a few years ago, would have been permanently crippling, sometimes even fatal. We are concerned today with what I might call the other side of that coin; we must match this advance in curative medicine by a similar one in the matter of prevention.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said in his opening


speech, it is estimated that about 300 million days of recorded absence from work through sickness and injury occurred last year, and of those probably about 20 million days were due to injury. These figures, of course, cover all occupations, not merely those covered by the Factories Acts. Moreover, a great deal of this sickness and injury is not occupational in origin. Nevertheless, much of it is, and may in time be preventable.
It is in this context that the work of the Factory Inspectorate, and the Acts which it has to administer should, I think, be judged in our debate today. No fewer than one-third of our working people work in factories and other places, such as building sites or docks, which are covered by the Acts and the Inspectorate. I say straight away that my right hon. Friend believes that the time has come when a new impetus should be given to this work. I shall be telling the Committee in some detail of what is being done in the course of my speech.
For the moment, I will only spotlight the importance and momentum of this effort by pointing out that at a time when, as the Committee knows, economies are being made in the overall work of my Department, I shall, in fact, be announcing actual increases of staff and expenditure devoted to this particular activity.
Perhaps it would be as well if, at this stage, after that pleasant piece of news I have for the Committee, I were to deal with one point which was made by the hon. Member for Newton in the early part of his speech. I refer to the canteen advisers. I think he was a little wrong, if I may say so, in describing this service as part of the Factory Inspectorate. As I am advised, and according to my understanding, that is not so. It is an auxiliary service; as a matter of convenience and obvious affinity with the Factory Department, it has, as it were, come under that umbrella; but we do not regard it as part of the Factory Inspectorate.
We must not get ourselves into the position of saying that, because we once start a service, which may be good and even necessary at the time we start it, we have, therefore, to keep on with that service for ever and a day without regard to changing conditions. If we are to devote the maximum resources at our command to the most urgent tasks—and there never will be enough resources in

this or in any other activity to do everything we wish to do at any given time—we must keep a very firm list of priorities, even though that means being somewhat ruthless with less urgent or less necessary, though I readily admit worthwhile and useful, activities.
I should tell the Committee straight away that, in the review of all our work which we have recently made, we have come to the conclusion that the conditions under which the Canteen Advisory Service was set up in wartime, and in which it was continued immediately after the war, no longer exist. In fact, there is very much less need for it today, and, looking at the matter in the light of the need for economy in the public service, we have come to the conclusion that the Canteen Advisory Service as such should come to an end. At the same time, arrangements will be made to ensure that the Chief Inspector continues to have at his disposal expert advice on canteen matters. The buildings and general conditions in canteens are, of course, properly covered by the Factories Acts and can be inspected in order that they might be kept to a satisfactory standard.

Mr. Lee: I understand that there are now about 21 people in the Canteen Advisory Service. Under the new dispensation the Parliamentary Secretary has announced, how many people would be able to advice?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend replies to that question, would he tell us what economy, in £s per annum, will be achieved by the reduction in the Canteen Advisory Service that he has announced?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Newton is quite right in saying the number is 21; but he has me in an awkward position, and so does my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), when asking about the exact economies. My right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of the investigation into the Factory Department and the Inspectorate which has been made. As the Committee will know, he has promised that in due course he will publish a White Paper on the subject.
Although we welcome this debate, to that extent it is a little early, and, therefore, I can only announce in some


respects rather preliminary conclusions. I would not like to commit myself to the exact number of advisers, but I must make it quite clear that it will not be 21, or anything like it; it may be a matter of one, two or three—perhaps even only one—but I would not like to commit myself finally at this juncture.
We concluded that in these works canteens, which are so well established now, in which conditions are entirely different, the standard is such that, provided that expert advice is there, the matter can be covered by the normal Inspectorate work under the Factories Acts. That does not vitiate the fact that, with this one exception which, as I say, is really outside the Factory Inspectorate as such, I shall, before I sit down, be able to announce an increase in the resources devoted to this subject at a time when, for reasons which the Committee knows, economies are having to be made in other directions.
The first thing to realise in discussing health and safety in industry is that the prime responsibility rests on industry itself, both employers and workers. The hon. Member for Newton showed that he realised that, as indeed, he must, of course, from his own long personal experience. Whether it be in the making of preventive guards or the operating of them, one cannot inspect people into safety, important though the rôle of legislation and inspection may be. In the last analysis, our job is to provide the right conditions and give the right guidance to the people in industry so that, as it were, they make themselves their own inspectors of what is safe and what is not. Employers and trade unions, jointly and severally, have a big responsibility both in education and in creating the right conditions for the appreciation by everybody who works in industry of the need for safety.
The rôle of Government in this matter is, I think, four-fold. First, we must see that the factory law keeps in step with modern needs and development; secondly, we must see that the minimum requirements laid down in the Acts and in the many codes of regulations made under them are observed; thirdly, we must be able to give advice to industry as a whole on these matters; and, fourthly, the Government must undertake, and must stimulate others to undertake, investigation, research and development.

If I may, I will try to deal with each of those four functions in turn.
It would perhaps be useful, first, to give some indication of the present trends and problems in this matter of safety and accidents. Before 1952, there was a downward trend in the number of accidents reported each year under the Factories Acts. Since 1952, that downward trend has ceased. I think that that should be a matter for concern. It is difficult to know quite why it should be so. The number of accidents reported has actually risen slightly each year since 1952, but, when allowance is made for the increased number of people at work, the incidence rate of accidents has remained more or less stable since 1952. Until 1952, however, it had been dropping slightly year by year.
Over the last few years, we have had an incidence rate of about 22 people per 1,000 suffering an accident every year. Expressed in total terms, that means about 160,000 accidents in factories and 25,000 accidents in other work places and they have involved approximately 700 fatalities every year.
An important trend in the causes of accidents is shown in the relative decline in those caused by power driven machinery. That is a tribute to the work done by means of legislation and inspection and by those who design and manufacture guards, and so forth. Most of the accidents in factories now occur as to 27 per cent. in the handling of goods, 14 per cent. as to persons falling, as to 9 per cent. by persons being struck by falling objects, as to 8 per cent. by stepping on or striking against objects, and as to another 8 per cent. in the use of hand tools. Together, those account for no less than 66 per cent. of all the accidents occurring in factories. They are also the main causes of accidents at other work places, such as building sites.
The building industry has a high accident rate and I shall say more about that as I develop my speech. Since 1950, the total number of accidents in it has increased steadily each year, from 12,340 in 1950 to 13,903 in 1954. This explains why special consideration has been given to safety problems in that industry.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Would the hon. Gentleman


tell the Committee which branch of the building industry shows the greatest increase in accidents?

Mr. Carr: In replying to an Adjournment debate, a few weeks ago, I dealt with this subject in detail. However, as I have a great deal of ground to cover, I have not come armed with an analysis of all these figures, since this would have kept me on my feet an unreasonable time. However, I will obtain the information and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moyle: I have in mind steel erectors, those who are called spidermen.

Mr. Carr: They would probably come under engineering construction.

Mr. Moyle: In the building industry.

Mr. Carr: The accident rate in the building industry is certainly largely due to falling. If I cannot obtain the figures before I sit down, I will let the hon. Gentleman know the analysis later. I have seen the figures, but there is such an enormous mass of them to keep in mind that I cannot remember them at the moment.
The fact that accidents are now mainly caused in the ways I have mentioned emphasises the importance of such aspects of accident prevention as what we call in industry "good housekeeping", also education, training and supervision. This is particularly true of the building industry, which has not the advantage of fixed factory sites, and where sites come into operation and go out of operation, where people move in and out, and where different trades come on to the site and off it again.
These are matters which cannot easily be regulated by statutory provisions and call mainly for the positive organisation of safety at work. I do not want to underestimate the importance of inspection and legislative control in this sphere but it must be recognised, particularly in the building industry and increasingly in factories, that we have to look for organisation for safety at work both to employers and to workpeople. One way in which we could see this mood reflected would be by having more works safety committees.

Mr. Collins: And more factory inspectors.

Mr. Carr: There are works safety committees in many large factories, but the proportion becomes progressively less in the smaller ones. While I want to see more works safety committees, it must be realised that a factory committee may not be appropriate in all cases. However, whether there is a committee or not there ought to be some recognised arrangement in each factory for joint consultation on safety matters, and that should apply even in the smallest works.
To be effective these committees should be established on a voluntary basis, because to be effective such committees must be an expression of the wish to do something. If that wish is not present, such a committee might merely take away responsibility from an individual or individuals amongst the workpeople and managements who had previously shown an interest in the subject. In the reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories cases are to be found where the safety record of a factory with a committee has been less good than that of a similar factory without one. So, although I want to see such committees, they should be an expression of a determination to do something, and they will not achieve the desired result if imposed by force.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that one important factor is the extent to which a management will pay attention to the recommendations of a safety committee, and that to prove its effectiveness beyond doubt one would have to know the number of recommendations rejected?

Mr. Carr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the point I was trying to make. I do not want managements to be able to say, "We have our safety committee and, therefore, there is no more we need do about it." That is more dangerous than not having one. As I have said, there must be the determination and the spirit to achieve something.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being most generous to the Committee in giving way. Would he permit another interruption? What are the figures of the safety committees now? Is there a promising trend shown in a greater number of safety committees in different industrial concerns? The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we had a debate on this matter


two years ago. Has the position improved since then?

Mr. Carr: The position has improved, I think. I cannot give figures offhand, but I will let the hon. and learned Gentleman know. That is one of the items in the report of the sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council to which I shall refer but, before doing so, I want to say something more about the trend of accidents.
One important feature of the present position is the incidence of accidents to young workers. In the case of boys and girls, the incidence rates have not fallen in recent years. This is particularly important because, in the next few years, we shall have an increasing number of young entrants into industry. Owing to their inexperience—I think that is the cause of it—they seem to be prone to take risks. However, if we take advantage of the fact that they are at an impressionable age, we should be able to train them to safer ways of working, so special attention to their safety is of the highest importance.
What has been done recently to encourage industry to pay more attention to safety measures, to set up safety committees and so on? The main action has been that the National Joint Advisory Council in 1954 set up an ad hoc sub-committee to review the subject. That sub-committee included representatives of employers and trade unions in the normal way. Its report was published in May this year and was given wide publicity, with the full backing of the leaders of all sides of industry. One extremely encouraging point has been that the first printing of 14,000 copies of the report—I think I am right in the number—has been sold out. As far as I can discover this represents a genuine sale and not merely a distribution across desks which leads sometimes, as alas we all know, into the waste paper basket. There has been a genuine sale reflecting a real interest in this subject.
It is too early yet to assess the results, but we hope that the recommendations of the sub-committee will provide a new boost to industry to take action in this respect. The recommendations concerning the Ministry of Labour and other Government Departments are already receiving attention, especially in relation to the problem of training young workers in

safety. The National Joint Advisory Council has acted promptly on one recommendation by setting up a Standing Industrial Safety Sub-Committee to keep progress under review and to report annually. That will give continuing help.
There has also been set up recently an Inter-departmental Committee on Industrial Safety Research, comprising representatives of Government, research committees and the Ministry of Labour. We felt that there was need for co-ordination and direction in this respect. I should also say that the report of the National Joint Advisory Council sub-committee has been brought to the attention of the bodies concerned with recruitment and training in industry, and also of the educational authorities, and that has provided a new stimulus to publicity and guidance in this matter.
I turn to the present state of the factory law and impending developments. I need not describe to the Committee the basis of our Factories Acts as, I think, it knows it well. The main Act under which we operate is the Factories Act, 1937, supplemented in certain respects by the 1948 Act. The basic requirements of these Acts are themselves supplemented by far-reaching powers given to the Minister to make regulations.
There are already over 150 sets of regulations, and the most important group is that of those under Section 60 of the 1937 Act. There are 55 such regulations under Section 60 of that Act, of which 12 have been made since the war. It is this power of the Minister to make regulations which enables the legislative requirements to be kept up to date and in line with industrial development. We in the Ministry have just completed a thorough review of the position.
In regard to the need for new and revised regulations, I would say that there are about a dozen codes at present under consideration or in various stages of preparation, and it has been decided that a new, special effort is to be made to speed up the work required to complete some of those revised codes. Some are comparatively short and simple; some, certainly from what I have seen of them, are, to say the least, long and complicated; some are entirely new; others are revisions of existing codes.
Included in the dozen or so I have mentioned are regulations relating to ionising radiation, works of engineering construction, ship building and ship repairing, lighting, horizontal mill machines, power presses, and the fencing of abrasive wheels. Those are all new ones, in addition to the revision and bringing up to date of earlier regulations, such as those for the chemical and rubber industries. It is hoped that the code relating to ionising radiation will be completed, if not by the end of this year, then early next year, and several other new codes will be made in the next year or two.
I am sure that the Committee will realise that it is impossible to lay down in detail any timetable for the issuing of regulations. Many of the problems involved are extremely complex and require a great deal of consultation, not only with technical experts, but also with both sides of the industries which will be effected. However, as I have said, a genuine, new and special effort is being made to expedite this work.
I turn to the subject of advisory publications. In the Ministry we attach a great deal of importance to the advisory publications, which can cover a wider range than can regulations, and which can be issued in advance of regulations, in many cases. We intend to put new speed into the provision of the advisory booklets and pamphlets, into revising some of the existing ones on health and safety matters, and into issuing new ones. The Department will, of course, look for advice on these questions to the new Standing Safety Sub-Committee of the N.J.A.C., to which I have referred.
The Factory Department, in its effort in initiating new regulations and in developing the advisory service, has for many years been assisted by the work and reports of a number of joint committees appointed by the Chief Inspector from the two sides of particular industries. I do not think we ought to consider this subject without saying once again how valuable the work of those joint committees has been and how valuable I am sure it will be in the future. There is one dealing with iron and steel foundries, the well-known example which led eventually to the making of regulations covering that industry, Now, more recently, a committee has been appointed for the

non-ferrous foundries. The help of these committees is valuable, and we certainly mean to continue to make use of this method of approach.
It ought also to be borne in mind that an important by-product of the production of regulations and advisory publications is that it reduces the burden of advisory work for individual inspectors. It develops, as it were, a bible on the subject, which can be passed to the industries concerned, so that every single problem does not have to be taken up to the same extent with individual inspectors.
Before I turn to the Inspectorate itself, there is one more subject on which I want to comment briefly, and that is industrial health. We seldom have a full debate on this subject, and I think it is worth putting some of these facts on record all at one time. In 1954 the Minister decided that a new impetus was needed, and he therefore appointed the Industrial Health Advisory Committee.
Following discussions with this Committee we are now taking various steps, including the following. First, there is the development of medical supervision. We are convinced that great benefit will flow if a larger proportion of factories have some medical supervision than is the case at the moment. The Chief Inspector is engaged in discussions with a number of industries with a view to stimulating the development of medical supervision, and those include steel foundries, iron and steel manufacture, and the chemical industry.
Secondly, two pilot surveys of industrial health provisions are already in progress. The first of these is a general survey of all factories in Halifax. That is now nearing completion. The second, which also has been already started, is of the pottery industry at Stoke-on-Trent. Those surveys are expected to throw light on the need of industrial health services and the best way of developing them.
Third, there are the regulations under the Acts, and the regulations to which I have already referred as being in course of preparation: for example, those dealing with ionising radiation, and those dealing with the rubber and chemical industries where we feel there are special risks which ought to be covered by regulations.
Finally, as a result of discussions with the Advisory Committee, there are new investigations and research proceeding under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and the Department itself into health problems in a number of industries. These problems include particularly those of dust in the foundry and cotton industries, the risks arising from the use of toxic solvents, and the widespread risk of dermatitis which, of course, has been throughout industry a cause of a great deal of illness and loss of time. The Medical Research Council and the co-ordinating inter-Departmental Committee already have a number of projects under consideration, but they are not sufficiently far advanced for me to make any announcement about them today.
Having reviewed the general trend of safety in factories, having spoken about developments which we foresee on the legislative side, and promised that we are going to speed up the work in that respect, having said something about industrial health, I turn finally to what is the central subject in our debate today, namely, the Factory Inspectorate. I begin, in response to a question put by the hon. Member for Newton, by telling the Committee something about the action which we have already taken to reduce fire risks in factories, following the promises I made in the debate that we had at Whitsun about the tragic fire in the woollen mill at Keighley. I recapitulate the promises of action that I gave in that debate, and I shall try to say something of what we have already done in fulfilment of those promises.
First, the Chief Inspector of Factories, I said, would write to all factory occupiers reminding them of their obligations to have effective fire alarms. That has been done. Secondly, I said he would also send to all factories advisory leaflets about the installation of alarms, including advice about the most suitable types for different factories. That also has been done. Thirdly, I said that a survey would be carried out by the Inspectorate, assisted by officers from the employment exchange service, of the position regarding fire alarms in all factories. That survey has been started, and will be completed by the end of October.

Mr. Collins: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Chief Inspector of Factories sent those notices to factories? Was their dispatch selective, or were they sent to all factories? I have four factories, but I have not seen one notice.

Mr. Carr: We have between forty thousand and fifty thousand to cover. I understand that dispatch started last month, and I should have thought that by now it would have been completed. I will make inquiries, and let the hon. Member know. If it has been completed I will, if I may, have a word with the hon. Member and discover how he has escaped it, because we do not want anybody to escape receiving that letter.

Mr. Collins: That is why I asked the question.

Mr. Carr: On the question of means of escape we have, as promised, taken steps to speed up examination, first, of the Crown factories, which are undoubtedly the responsibility of the Factory Inspectorate, and we hope that that will soon be done. We have also instructed inspectors to make use of their powers under the 1927 Act to encourage local authorities to carry out examinations and the licensing procedure for themselves. We have also told the inspectors that, if necessary, they are to use their powers to carry out examinations themselves if there is no likelihood of the local authorities being able to do all that is necessary in a reasonable time and manner.
The hon. Member for Newton asked whether this prime responsibility should be taken away from local authorities. I am reluctant to do that. We ought not to overlook the very large success which has attended the work of many local authorities in this respect. There are some areas where local authorities have carried out the responsibility in an admirable manner. Equally, there are many others where they have not done so. In saying that, I am not necessarily apportioning blame, because it is a matter of staffing and of getting round to all the jobs that they have to do. But if we have over-riding power for our inspectors to do this where the local authorities cannot do it I think that we ought to leave matters as they stand at the moment. In any case, the technical complexities of altering the law on the subject would take


somewhat longer than getting on with the job on the basis that I have mentioned.
I said something about fire drills. We have told our inspectors that they are to press employers to adopt the procedure of fire drills in suitable cases. When we have seen what success we are getting from this voluntary persuasion we shall be able to consider whether or not there is need for enforcing the regulations. As promised, work has been put in hand on drafting new regulations imposing special obligations on factories whose processes are carried on with a high fire risk. That promise was made only in May. We cannot give details of where we are getting to at the moment, but I assure the Committee that the Chief Inspector and his staff are actively engaged in considering what can be done by way of regulations.
Discussions are also taking place, as promised, with the Home Office about effecting closer relationships between factory inspectors and fire prevention officers. Our inspectors have been asked to press factory occupiers to call in those officers to give them advice. It is true that fire prevention officers have not a right of entry, and I am advised that to give it to them legislation would be needed. The best thing we can do is to watch the position, but we are telling our inspectors definitely to use what persuasive influence they have on employers to call these fire prevention officers in and make use of the services that exist. I think that the proper course is to see what result comes of it. The publication of advisory literature on fire prevention in factories is also being discussed with the Home Office, as promised.
Immediately after our debate on the Keighley fire, my right hon. Friend visited Keighley and met members of the Factories Inspectorate working in that area. The hon. Member for Newton raised the question of the failure of the follow-up procedure. I said in that debate, as I felt it right and my duty to say, that there had been a failure of the follow-up procedure in that case. I can assure the hon. Member that we have not been content just to leave the matter there and to assume that that case was an unusual coincidence. We have had a look at that procedure and we believe that the failure was an isolated case.
Certainly we have evidence that the follow-up procedure should normally work satisfactorily. Apart from this, my right hon. Friend is giving consideration to the Report of officials on the whole organisation of the Factory Department which is concerned with matters of this kind. We should keep in mind that the Factory Inspectorate is now part of a great Department with a regional organisation, the Ministry of Labour. We intend to see whether there are ways in which the general services which exist throughout the country can give help to the Factory Inspectorate, not to take the inspectors' work from them, but to give them help in routine matters of this kind, and to see whether, in that way, they can both save time and be more effective.

Mr. J. T. Price: Has the Minister given due consideration to the fact that there are two other agencies, which have not been mentioned since I came into the Chamber? I apologise for not having been here at the start of the debate. They are the two very important agencies of the trade unions and the insurance companies which are carrying the risks for employers' common law liability and so forth.
Ought there not to be closer liaison between them and the Factory Inspectorate? I assure the Minister, from practical experience, that a competently administered trade union and its opposite number on the insurance side, men who are dealing with these consequences all the time, are better informed on many of these situations than are the factory inspectors themselves.

Mr. Carr: I am sure that we want to make use of all agencies of that kind. I am sure that the trade unions have a genuine interest in and a knowledge of this matter. Our co-operation with bodies such as those is close. If help is needed, I am sure that they will come forward and tell the Inspectorate.
I come finally to the general question of the Factory Inspectorate. My right hon. Friend particularly wants to be associated with me in saying that in the seven months that we have been at the Ministry of Labour we have had time to learn and note the work of the Factory Inspectorate, and we should like to pay tribute to the work that it is doing and


to say that we have complete confidence in the ability of the inspectors to continue to improve the safety and health of those who work in factories.
Excluding certain senior posts at headquarters, the authorised strength of the general Inspectorate is at present 322. At the end of the war it stood at 309. The change since that date is largely accounted for by the addition of about a dozen inspectors in 1948 to cope with extra work arising out of building Regulations. The difficulty ever since the war has been to recruit up to the full establishment. In 1947 there were no fewer than 100 vacancies. By 1950 the shortage was still 56. By 1953 it had been reduced to 14. At present, I am glad to say that the Inspectorate is at last virtually at full strength.
Considerable criticism has been made of the "inadequate" size of the Inspectorate, but I submit that it was really quite useless to talk about increasing the establishment until some factual evidence had come forward that it was possible to maintain even the present one. That position has been achieved in the last two or three years, and, therefore, the time has come to think about whether the establishment is adequate, and to look to the future. As the Committee knows, that is what we have been doing.
An official Report has been presented to my right hon. Friend and he is considering it at the moment. The Report deals most thoroughly with the size, staffing and organisation of the Inspectorate. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of that Report and, from that narrow point of view, this debate comes a few weeks earlier than perhaps we might have wished. My right hon. Friend has, however, been able to make decisions about the number of staff, and these I shall be announcing. In addition, my right hon. Friend will be able to make further decisions in relation to organisation, training and other such matters when his final consideration of the Report is completed.
One of the most controversial points which was raised, quite properly, by the hon. Member for Newton, in opening the debate, was that of the qualifications required by the recruits to the Factory Inspectorate. What proportion of them

should come to it with technical qualifications, and what proportion should be men and women with degrees in non-technical subjects? I think that it is generally agreed that there should be a mixture of both types. I think that there are only a few who would advocate all technical or all non-technical recruits. There has always been a mixture in the past and, in my opinion, there should be a mixture in the future.
The argument concerns the proportion of this mixture. In deciding that, two factors have to be considered. The first is the nature of the work, and the second—and I earnestly commend this for serious consideration to those who for very good and excellent reasons are fanatical about increasing the technically qualified content of the Inspectorate—is the urgent need for technical manpower throughout the whole of our economy. Therefore, there is an added interest these days to make sure that all those with technical qualifications arc used with the greatest efficiency and, as far as possible, only in jobs where they use their qualifications to the full.
I want to look at the work of the Inspectorate against those two criteria. The only practical way of arranging the work of the general Inspectorate is on a geographical basis. It would be impossibly complicated and cumbersome to allocate particular inspectors to the particular industries in which they had special technical qualifications. The Factory Inspectorate could never be sure of sending the right specialists to the right factories, even if it had an unlimited supply of them. That, I think, applies more and more as industry becomes more and more technically complicated and more and more specialised.
If we were to depend for general inspection on the technical qualifications of the general Inspectorate, we should need not only more inspectors but an ever greater variety of different specialists. I ask the Committee to consider very carefully whether that is the right way to proceed. The work of the general Inspectorate certainly requires a knowledge of technical matters but it is in itself an executive job, and it does not involve an inspector actively practising his technique, say, as an engineer or as a chemist.
Many arts graduates have made excellent inspectors and have in fact reached


the highest positions in the service. So the knowledge of technical matters, which the Inspectorate does undoubtedly require, is in our opinion something which the arts graduate can pick up, provided—and this is important—that he is helped by suitable training and by the co-operation of his technically qualified colleagues both in the general Inspectorate and in the special branches of the regions. Against this background of the general nature of the work, coupled with the acute shortage of technical manpower throughout the country, it has been decided that there is not a case for aiming at any fixed percentage of technically qualified persons within the general Inspectorate.
Within the limits of this policy, however, every effort will be made to increase interest of potential candidates for the Inspectorate who have technical qualifications. The technical strength of the Inspectorate must be judged as a whole, particularly remembering the rôle of specialist branches. The rôle of these branches becomes ever more important as scientific and technical developments become more complicated and specialised.
I suggest to the Committee that it is in the staffing of these special branches that the Inspectorate can make the fullest use in all its work of people with scarce technical qualifications. In particular the engineering and chemical branch is of great importance. I may say that we are particularly concerned about the engineering and chemical branch. The load of work on that branch is exceptionally heavy. As the moment it is not able—and I admit this—to give as much help as is desirable in dealing with inquiries from the districts, or in dealing at first hand with all the problems calling for specialised knowledge. Moreover, the work of that branch will be substantially increased by the decision, which I have already announced, to expedite the production of several new codes and regulations and advisory publications. I shall shortly have something to announce in that connection.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Does that mean that there is now a retreat from what was said by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the former Parliamentary Secretary, in 1954, that it

was hoped to get 50 per cent. of technically trained men?

Mr. Carr: I think that the hon. Member has misconstrued the statement of my predecessor. My right hon. Friend put this matter into perspective in answer to a Question the other day. I think that I made the position quite clear—that we intend to try to attract more technical graduates to the Factory Inspectorate, but we do not believe that there is any logic which leads us to a fixed percentage.
I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look back and re-read the 1928 Report, which he quotes so freely that sometimes I wonder whether he knows the whole of it off by heart, he will find that it did not go quite so far in this matter, even in the conditions of 1928, as he himself sometimes suggests. No doubt, the hon. Member will catch your eye, Mr. Hynd, later and be able to explain his case then.
I want the Committee to consider more carefully than perhaps it has done this question of the general work and the diversification of specialists. The man in the field, if he is a specialist in only one faculty, is in fact only a specialist in a tiny bit of the work that he has to do. We have to consider whether, in these conditions, it is not better to concentrate so far as possible in building up the standard of work in our specialised branches, and whether this is not the best way of making use of our scientific manpower.
The hon. Member raised the matter of pay. The pay of the Factory Inspectorate is being reviewed, following the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and the subsequent agreement between the two sides of the National Whitley Council. That means that the matter is sub judice at the moment and I cannot, therefore, make any statement to the Committee. I am sorry about that, but I am sure that the Committee understands how these matters work, and will forgive me for not making a statement. I think that it would not be out of place if I expressed some hope that these deliberations will finally bring about some improvement in the position.

Mr. Nabarro: And will not be long, either.

Mr. Carr: I now turn to the size of the Inspectorate. It is impossible to assess with any accuracy by how much the work-load of the Inspectorate has


changed. The actual number of factories which are covered has declined over the last thirty years, but I am not bringing that fact forward as an argument that the work has become less, because although the total number of premises has declined, the number of power factories has increased, and the inspection of power factories requires much more time and work than the inspection of non-power factories.
The changes both in law and in the nature of industry which have increased the load are the ones which are naturally obvious. On the other hand, there have also been changes which must have reduced the load, particularly the fact that there are now many more modern factories and also that industry is much more knowledgeable and co-operative in all these matters than it used to be. We must realise that the need for inspection in 1956 is very different from the need for inspection even twenty or thirty years ago. We have come to the conclusion that no formula for measuring work-load can give valid results, because conditions vary too much from area to area. It becomes less and less desirable to try to work to rigid rules.
Up to the end of 1954 it was the aim of the Factory Inspectorate to comply with the general standards of inspection recommended by the 1928 Committee of Inquiry. Since then, in the last two years, we have found that that formula introduced too much rigidity. For example, sonic factories where conditions were reasonably good and risks low were receiving unnecessarily frequent inspections, and vice versa.
Since 1st January, 1955, a revised scheme for planning visits of inspection was introduced on an experimental basis. Under this scheme the normal work of inspection is planned in each district by the inspector on a yearly basis. He decides which factories are to be accorded priority, having regard to the nature of the work, the standard of compliance with statutory requirements, the length of time since last inspected, and all relevant considerations of that kind. We are satisfied that these more flexible arrangements are on the right lines. We are aware of the point, which is of much importance, that inspectors should be able to make more check visits to follow up deficiencies in complying with the Acts which have

been drawn to the notice of occupiers during inspection.
Whatever else may be said about the work-load, it is certain that the coverage of building sites and works of engineering construction has added to it considerably. Although the general Inspectorate was increased by about 12 when the Building Regulations came into force, it is our opinion that more needs to be done. I come to the statement which I promised the Committee about the changes which we hope to make. The hon. Member for Newton talked about doubling the size of the Inspectorate. It is no use the hon. Gentleman expecting me to follow him in that view, and I doubt whether he seriously thought that I would. I have very grave doubts whether, were he in my position, as he once was, he would be thinking of proceeding with any such suggestion, either. I am sure that these matters must be dealt with gradually and steadily. In the last few years we have brought about an increase in the Factory Inspectorate in that we have brought it up to establishment.
My right hon. Friend proposes to increase the number of factory inspectors by such stages as are practicable in relation to recruitment and absorption. In the first place—this is a matter of priorities—the strength of the engineering and chemical branch, at present 18, is to be increased to at least 44. Subject to further consideration in detail this will enable my right hon. Friend to station one engineering inspector and one chemical inspector in each division.
In addition, there is to be some reinforcement of the general Inspectorate in order particularly to enable the inspectors to pay more attention to building operations and works of engineering construction. However, I cannot, for the reasons I have explained, so early in our consideration, put any figure to that general increase; and I cannot associate myself—I do not think the hon. Member expected me to—with any target such as that of doubling the present size.
I am afraid that I have given a lengthy review. I have done so because I wanted to cover the whole of the ground and, as far as I could, to answer the questions of hon. Members. In view of what has been achieved in building up the Inspectorate in the last few years, and in view


of what I have said about the new drive in regard to regulations and advisory pamphlets, the new decisions about the staffing of the Inspectorate, and the further consideration of its organisation which my right hon. Friend is still conducting, I hope that the Committee will feel that this Government, and my right hon. Friend in particular, are in earnest about giving a new drive to this important subject. That is what we intend to do now and in the future, and I hope that the results will be seen in fewer accidents and less illness and, therefore, more economic efficiency and more human happiness as well.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: We have just heard a very lengthy explanation of the work of the Department and, in the tail end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, we were told of some welcome improvements in that the Inspectorate is to be increased in size and that, at least, there will be prima facie some consideration of an increase in the salary of the inspectors. It was a lengthy and unique speech in that the debate is to last from 3.30 until 7.0, and this speech lasted for almost one hour. I am sure that the Committee would have received this with great irritation but for the fact that we have had this welcome information given to us. There has been a tendency in the preparation of the brief to keep the Committee quiet rather than to tell us of the important developments which are to ensue.
It is a tenet of Parliamentary practice that when we are in Committee of Supply there should be no Supply without redress of grievances, and, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said, I still think that we have quite a number of grievances about the Factory Inspectorate and factory safety regulations. Reference has been made to my constituency. That could hardly be avoided in view of the fact that the accident in Keighley was the most tragic for many years. Eight people were burned to death due to the negligence of the employers in not having a fire alarm. Having said that, I pay tribute to the Minister for what he did after that terrible accident. He certainly got busy; he certainly "shook them up" locally. There is not the slightest doubt that it was as a result of his personal action that the regulations were changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) spoke about the inspection of factories by local authorities and said that in some areas it was almost impossible for this to be done. That point should be seriously considered. My hon. Friend comes from Lancashire and I come from Yorkshire; we were both reared in the engineering industry and weboth know that around the large industrial cities there are many small villages in which there are large mills. These mills are in areas where the local authority is a rural district or a parish council. These small local authorities have no borough engineer or medical officer of health, as such, and therefore no sanitary inspector. That means that there is no one competent to make the inspections. The only people who can do the work are officials from the Ministry of Labour. I hope that this matter will be considered. It certainly is germane to our discussion.
The fire at Keighley took place on 25th February, and eight people were killed. I have received information from a member of the council, which debated the matter last Thursday week, that since the fire not one single fire certificate has been issued by the local authority. If I were a cynic I should say that that was a very good job, too. Why should I say that? I should say it because the mill where the tragedy occurred had had a fire certificate granted to it despite the fact that the fire escape did not reach to all storeys and that there was no fire alarm. There is something seriously wrong when such a situation can arise in which fire certificates are granted without even the most cursory examination of the premises. I suggest that this question should be examined again.
The number of factories in my constituency is 161. Eighteen of them employ fewer than 20 people and, therefore, escape the provisions of Sections 34 to 37 of the Act which deal with safety from fire. Since 25th February, fifteen applications have been made, and one-third of the factories had been issued with certificates before the fire occurred. The position to date in Keighley, therefore, is that 79 factories have not taken the trouble to apply for certificates. That seems to me to be scandalous, and I should like to know what can be done to tighten the procedure.
That is the story despite the effort that the Minister of Labour himself has made


and despite his visit to my constituency. Despite the shake-up which has taken place in the Inspectorate, that is the position today and we have a long way to go. In fact, we are not far advanced from the situation described by the Parliamentary Secretary on 18th May, when he said:
There is no doubt that non-compliance with this essential provision is widespread and Serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 2429.]
The hon. Gentleman was referring, of course, to the provision of fire alarms. Therefore, as I say, a great deal still has to be done.
I do not consider that the penalties under Sections 34 to 37 of the Act are adequate. The owners of the mill in my constituency at which eight people were killed, and where there was no fire alarm, were fined £15. In other words, the value of the lives was placed at less than £2 per head. This is a ridiculous and scandalous state of affairs, especially when one considers the fines that are sometimes imposed for minor motoring offences and when one remembers that people have been sent to gaol, even quite recently, for stealing bottles of milk. Surely, there is something wrong with an Act of Parliament which provides that the maximum fine shall be £20. I hope that something can be done by way of regulations to secure stronger penalties.
In many parts of the country, the response to the campaign initiated by the Minister has been quite satisfactory. I still think that a great deal depends upon the quality and type of the Inspectorate personnel. I was very pleased, therefore, to hear the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary today that there is to be an increase in the number of the Inspectorate and also that the question of remuneration is to be considered.
There is still need for many new regulations. I do not understand why, in the case of textile mills which have wooden floors—wooden floors are necessary in certain processes of spinning, but the wood could be laid on top of concrete—regulations cannot be brought in to allow a period of, say, ten years for the mills to be reconstructed and have concrete floors put in, against the penalty of having them pulled down, because, otherwise, the fire menace will always be present. In February, there were four factory fires in Yorkshire. In another instance, in the

constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), the machinery actually fell through the floor. Fortunately, it happened when nobody was in the mill.
The problem of these old mills is as well known to the Minister as it is to me. It seems to me that it can be overcome only by the making of new regulations. In view of the essential nature of both cotton and wool to the country's economy, it may be necessary, according to the prosperity or otherwise of the company concerned, for the Government to provide facilities for the provision of capital to enable reconstruction to be undertaken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton spoke of safety committees, which do valuable work. I do not want to enter into party politics on this issue, but I feel that the value of safety committees is greatest in industries and factories where there is strong trade union representation. In such places these committees are of real value, for the boss knows that other avenues are open to the trade unions for bringing pressure to bear. Insurance companies, too, are conscious that when death or accident befalls a trade unionist as a result of an employer's neglect, the payment of a considerable sum by way of compensation under the common law is likely to follow.
I wonder whether, when the position is being reviewed in the Department, the suggestion can be considered of making safety committees compulsory in large undertakings which employ fifty or more people. This would be a welcome step and would prevent a number of the accidents which now occur. With a view to fire prevention, I should like to know whether regulations could not be introduced to ensure that textile mills are equipped with sprinkler valves. In the case of certain processes, this is essential.
It is strange that regulations under the Factories Acts do not, as far as I know, apply to railway running sheds. I do not know whether legislation would be necessary to secure their application in this direction. I should like to hear an authoritative statement from the Minister as to whether the provisions of the Factories Acts could not be extended to railway running sheds where, because of the age of the sheds, many of the conditions are deplorable.
The Opposition has been wise in selecting this topic for debate today so that we can ventilate the whole question of factory safety, which is vital and important to us all. I only hope that there will be great vigilance on the part of local people. I am well aware of the concern of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary for human life, but a sense of urgency should be shown within the Department at a reasonable level so that factories can be examined at the earliest opportunity and without notice.
There should be ways and means also of stimulating the local authorities. The Minister has been very generous in helping them and in providing staff and advice, but it still remains the responsibility of a local authority to issue a fire certificate. We need to consider seriously those cases in which local authorities issue fire certificates to buildings which are not safe.
Finally, when the fire service estimates—this matter was also touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton—were considered by the Select Committee on Estimates in 1950–51 under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the Committee examined the various difficult liaisons—I think that is the correct word to use—in respect of the duties of the various Departments. There seems to be some sort of malaise since Factory Inspectorate moved from the Home Office. There seems to be a certain amount of sour grapes. I do not know whether that has yet been cleared up.
There is also the question of the power of the Home Office in respect of fire precautions. I do not see why, as was hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton, fire safety in factories, mills and workshops, just as in places of public entertainment, could not be the responsibility of fire brigade officers. I believe we shall come to that in the end.
I thank the Minister again for what he has done following the fire at Keighley. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown in his speech that we are at least making progress. I hope that the points that I have raised and those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton will be considered, because I believe they are relevant and helpful in relation to improving the situation.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I welcome this opportunity for a periodical review of the operations of the Factories Acts and the various regulations which have been made during the last few years under the main Act of 1937.
I should like at the outset to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon a very far-reaching survey of the activities within the general structure of the principal Acts. Though many of the figures had previously been published, they were put together today in a most encouraging pattern, one which shows that in the great body of our principal industries substantial progress has been made in all aspects of health, safety and welfare during the last few years.
This is a matter which ought to exercise every Member of Parliament, but notably those on both sides of the House who represent industrial constituencies. My constituency is overwhelmingly an industrial one, and today I propose to deal largely with industrial matters not only as affecting my constituency but arising directly from my experience in industry during the last few years and in a wide variety of branches, particularly, of the engineering industry.
Last year about 450 men and women were killed in industrial occupations and about 160,000 injured. In addition, about 250 men and women were killed in occupations which are subject to the Factories Acts, though the actual fatalities did not occur in workships. Some 20,000 men and women in the same category were injured. That makes the total of about 700 fatal accidents and 180,000 injuries in one year. To that must be added a further 450 fatal accidents in the mines and a further very large number of injuries in coal mining or in occupations analogous to coal mining.
It is self-evident from these figures how very large the problem is and what a dreadful toll of human life is being taken year by year, largely as a result of inexperience on the part of managements and operators, largely as a result of inadequate safeguards being applied, and largely—I would emphasise this to the Minister—as a result of neglect to observe the provisions of the 1937 Factories Act.
I shall not deal with fire matters, particularly as the hon. Member for


Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has covered the subject adequately as the result of the tragic experience a few months ago in his constituency, but the magnitude of the problem will be apparent.
I cannot stress too strongly that the figures which I have given are in respect of reported accidents only. Hundreds of thousands of minor accidents occur in factories every year which never find their way into the general register of the factory concerned and are thus not classified as reported accidents. Consequently, they do not find their way into the Ministry's statistics.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and the Parliamentary Secretary were concerned, of course, with the tremendous loss of productive time in British industry today as a result of reported accidents, but I would draw their attention to the fact that—I speak here from personal experience, without statistics, but I am sure I am correct—the loss of time through accidents which are not reported is much greater than that through accidents which are reported.

Mr. Collins: In this respect the hon. Member might have regard to the fact that the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance pays out in respect of 750,000 claims a year in respect of accidents, which is about three times the number of reported accidents.

Mr. Nabarro: That is a valuable piece of evidence which, I sadly confess, I had missed in my researches. If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, it would suggest—I put it no higher than that—that the ratio of accidents which are not reported to those which are reported is as two is to one.
There is an enormous—I say "enormous" advisedly—loss of time in productive industry today, notably in the engineering group of industries, as a result of minor non-reported accidents, and of these none contributes to a greater loss of time than sepsis of fingers, arms and legs. When I refer to sepsis, I do not wish to impinge upon a forthcoming speech—if he should catch the eye of the Chair—by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).
I know from my own experience that in factories, notably in the engineering group, saw milling, and so on, very large numbers of minor accidents which are

only scratches are very often caused by a steel or wood splinter entering the operative's finger or arm, and if it is not attended to at once, sepsis is the inevitable result. In those factories which have no surgeries, but which rely upon first-aid boxes, referred to by the hon. Member for Newton, particularly in the context that many of the first-aid boxes are operated and administered by men and women with dirty hands—that is abundantly true—more often than not minor scratches of the kind I have described go untreated. The result is invariably sepsis and a tremendous loss of productive time.
In those factories, small, medium or large, where the managements have been sufficiently enlightened to spend capital moneys upon the installation of surgeries, staffed by State-registered nurses and similarly qualified and experienced persons, working time lost through minor accidents is greatly reduced. I am no Socialist. I loathe bureaucracy in every form. I do not like controls, regulations, inhibitions or restrictions. None the less, I am the strongest possible supporter of the objective requirements of the 1937 Factories Act, and I say to my right hon. Friend that the time has come in our industrial history when every factory employing more than 150 men or women should be required by regulation under the Factories Acts to have a surgery manned by a suitably qualified and experienced man or woman, preferably a State-registered nurse.
It may be said that there are insufficient trained personnel available in the country to do this. That was the argument, now largely disproved, which was advanced in pre-war days against requiring that every factory over a certain size should have a factory canteen. I shall come to that point in a moment. I want to impress on my hon. Friend that the improvement in continuous working of operatives in factories where those hazards to which I have referred exist, and where surgeries are available for treating them, is astounding when compared with those factories which have neglected to build surgeries and first-aid centres, and which are still reliant upon often ill-equipped first-aid boxes.
My right hon. Friend will know from his own observations that even though a first-aid box may be fully equipped first


thing in the morning and replenished during the day most of the bandages, and so forth, do not go to the treatment of injuries, but are generally pilfered. That is one of the principal difficulties of maintaining equipment in first-aid boxes. Another is the fact that the person in charge has ordinary production duties and his mind is on production work. That is why the system is often inefficient in its general operation.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am not disagreeing with what the hon. Member says. There is a good deal of force in it. Has he considered that because of the difficulty of maintaining the contents of the boxes, for the reasons he has stated, in many factories the boxes are kept locked and that when required it is often very difficult to find the man who has the key?

Mr. Nabarro: That is a corollary of what I said. The man in charge of the first-aid box is often a person who has production duties. For that reason the first-aid box is kept locked and, if it is left open, its contents are invariably pilfered.

Mr. Price: That, again, is a breach of the Act.

Mr. Nabarro: It is all part of the same difficulty. In larger factories—and I mean factories with 150 operatives or more—there should be a surgery in the care of a suitably qualified person. Many of these difficulties would thereby be removed with a consequent benefit to production.
A second reform which is long overdue is in connection with factory canteens. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a welcome statement today about the disbanding and winding up of the Canteen Advisory Service which was introduced in the war before factory canteens in establishments employing more than 250 persons were compulsory. During the war years an Order was made that every factory employing more than 250 persons should have a works canteen. The point now arises whether, after the Canteen Advisory Service is disbanded, the industrial canteen contractors, who do very useful work in all parts of the country, notably in industrial areas, will be able fully to provide those services

which the Ministry's Canteen Advisory Service formerly provided?
The fact of the matter is that today we have a regulation that all factories employing more than 250 persons should have a canteen. I believe that this figure is much too high. The regulation was brought in as a war-time Measure. It was introduced to deal with shift working, often twenty-four hours round the clock, and often in factories and workshops where shift working had not previously been conducted. Today no enlightened employer should have any difficulty in providing a good canteen in any factory where more than 100 persons are employed.
Surely it would be a great aid to production, output and general welfare facilities to be able to say to employees that in the middle of an eight and a half or nine-hour shift they shall be provided with the facility of being able to buy a hot meal? Surely that should apply with equal force to a factory employing 100 persons as hitherto it has applied to factories employing more than 250 persons? There is now no difficulty with building materials or industrial building licences. It should be a compulsory requirement that all factories and workshops employing more than 100 persons, instead of 250 persons as at present, should provide proper feeding facilities.
I want to make a very short reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Keighley on the subject of regulations under the Factories Act, 1937. Many of the existing regulations urgently require attention. Many new sets of regulations arising from developments in technology over the last few years are long overdue. I want to give an example. I do not expect an answer today, but I would like my hon. Friend later on to write to me to justify why he has failed to amend regulations in respect of woodworking machine tools, having regard to the fact that the woodworking regulations were made in 1922, thirty-four years ago.
Does my hon. Friend know what a high speed electric router is? I am sure that with his industrial experience he will have come across it. He will know that a high speed electric router is a most dangerous machine. It was first used in this country in 1934 for woodworking purposes, but, later, under the impetus


of an expansion in aircraft production, notably in the early stages of the late war, the uses of this valuable machine spread to non-ferrous alloys. Today it is ubiquitous. Its spindle revolves at a speed higher than that of any machine tool commonly used in this country. It is applied on a general principle of a French spindle which is a much simpler tool, though still highly dangerous.
When the woodworking regulations were made in 1922, the high speed electric router was not even invented and brought to this country. No attempt has been made to bring the regulations up to date, although many accidents have occurred as a result of just this one type of machine that I cite. In my own personal experience of a factory for which I was responsible at the time, a man cut off the tops of three fingers as a result of an accident on this machine, and I believe that, indirectly, that accident might have been caused through the failure to classify it as a highly dangerous machine within the terms of the woodworking regulations, which I suggest urgently need revision.
Finally, I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to one aspect of what he had to say today about factory inspectors. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Newton who suggested that the proper thing to do would be to double the number of factory inspectors. Equally, I believe that in reply my hon. Friend missed the principal point. Of course it would be undesirable to staff the Factory Inspectorate on the basis of having highly qualified technicians of a specialist character. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in that. Every factory inspector must be a "generalist," if I may use a somewhat hackneyed expression, in his approach to the manifold duties which are his responsibility.
For instance, he has duties such as seeing that the walls of the workshop are properly limewashed or painted. He has the sort of duty which calls for assuring that juveniles and young persons employed in the factory have been properly inspected by the factory doctor. He has the general responsibility of going into the works canteen and seeing that the arrangements are adequate. He might visit the factory at 10 o'clock at night—and how many times have I been caught by factory inspectors in the works on this

very point—with a light meter going around the machines and holding his light meter by the machine tools on which operatives are engaged to make sure that the lighting is correct for the work being conducted.
Those are all mundane processes and they do not call for highly-qualified technicians or university graduates to enforce the law. Of course, they do not, and women could perform such duties. What we want in the Factory Inspectorate is a much greater devolution of responsibility. I should like to see possibly 100 extra women employed in the Inspectorate. My hon. Friend told me today that the strength was 322. I should like to see 100 extra persons, all women, charged with largely non-technical responsibilities of a mundane and enforcement character, for the reasons to which I have referred. I use the word "mundane" metaphorically.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I thought I detected some slight inconsistency in the remarks of my hon. Friend. He was calling for the recruitment of women, yet at Question Time today he very boldly said that a woman's place was in the home.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure, Sir Leonard, you would rule me out of order if I strayed into a discussion upon the emancipation of women, which would be only slightly germane to discussion of this subject. What I am saying is that there is a large number of young women who, coming straight from training courses—if necessary from universities—would willingly take up industrial duties within the Factory Inspectorate and deal with enforcement of many non-technical requirements of the Factories Acts. I hope my hon. Friend will not say in reply that there are women factory inspectors. I have suffered at their hands too often not to know that there are women factory inspectors. I am saying that there are many less technical duties within the duties of the Inspectorate—I have instanced only a few—which could well be dealt with by women of a lesser stature and rank than a full factory inspector. They should be recruited as general assistants to the factory inspectors in the various regions and areas of the country.
Those are a few of my comments upon the operations of the Factories Acts at


present. They are somewhat critical in character, but they are derived from my personal experience in factories in the post-war period and from observations brought to me by constituents in a largely industrialised constituency. My hon. Friend will not be able to reply today to all the points I have made. I hope that he will not omit to send me a full statement of the views of his Ministry on what I consider would be valuable adjuncts to the future operation of these important statutes.

5.32 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: In one thing at least I find myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). When he spoke of the danger of neglecting so-called trivial wounds of the skin, particularly of the fingers. I am sure he was quite correct. It is not true, of course, that all those wounds become septic. If they did workers would become much more careful and would ask for treatment. Perhaps one in ten become septic, but out of that number an appreciable percentage leads to serious incapacity and sometimes total incapacity through necrosis of the bone by neglect, injury to the joints, stiffness of the joints, and so on.
The last part of the observations of the hon. Member, in reference to the dilution of the Inspectorate, struck me as being unusual, perhaps, for him. He was asking that we should put people of a different character into the Inspectorate. They would be a type of junior inspector and it would be something like comparing quack doctors with fully-qualified doctors. If that were all we wanted in the way of auxiliaries, I should have thought it possible to have them trained in the factory itself, for the hon. Member referred simply to observation work. After suggesting that it was not necessary to keep the Canteen Advisory Service, the hon. Member suggested that there should be a canteen in every factory where 100 or more people were employed. There seemed to be a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is doing me a great deal less than justice, as he will recall that I drew attention to the rapid growth of industrial canteen contractors in the post-war period. They are more than sufficiently equipped to

advise on any subject relating to industrial feeding. Those contractors were largely not there before the war, but they ought now to take the place of the publicly-paid Canteen Advisory Service, if I may so call it.

Dr. Stross: Nevertheless, I should have thought that the Canteen Advisory Service of the Ministry had other things in mind than advising on layout and industrial feedings. It could give a rather broader service. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that many people from abroad are shown over the Service and are taught a great deal about it. It has many requests of that kind.
Turning to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I thought the last part of his speech a comforting placebo to those of us who listened to all he had to say. He told us that the engineering and chemical branch is to be raised from eighteen to forty-four. Naturally, I was delighted to hear that. He could not give the figures for the increase in inspectors with special knowledge of the building industry and we shall wait with some anxiety to see what those ultimate figures may be. I believe that at the moment the number of inspectors in the engineering and chemical branch is ten engineering inspectors and eight qualified in chemistry. I believe they all advise from London.
I understand they have been so overloaded with work that sometimes months have to go by before they can get to a problem. The fault, if any, must lie with the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend who, if things go wrong, accept responsibility just as they have a right to ask for praise when they are successful in their work. It is not unfair to say that some problems are just not ever answered. They become stale before it is their turn to be looked at. That, of course, is most undesirable. For that reason, the Committee was happy to hear that there is to be an appreciable increase in these key posts.
I should like at this point to refer to the addiction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the arts and arts-qualified men as being quite suitable to this work. He was, perhaps, accusing me of being somewhat of a purist because I want more people than we have been getting who are qualified in chemistry, physics and,


of course, engineering. I do not despise an arts degree; indeed it was far more difficult for me to write Greek verse than to obtain an honours science degree later. I accept that and I also accept that a good arts degree gives a man an excellent mental training, but we see that in the large factories, staff who are employed full-time on this work are chosen from technically-qualified men,
I think it is unfair to graduates brought in at 21 years of age and with or without a little training at Loughborough, if they are lucky, that when they go to supervise the work of a qualified safety officer they are faced by the fact that they really cannot match up to his knowledge. That is not fair and that is why I think it right to press that this great service, which looks after the health and welfare of 8 million workers, should have the best qualified people in it. I know that in his heart the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me.
I have pressed this issue for some years because of the admiration I have always had for the Factory Inspectorate. As medical officer to the miners of North Staffordshire for twenty-five years and to the pottery workers throughout Great Britain, I have always admired and esteemed very highly the work I have seen the Inspectorate do in the area where I lived and worked. I would not take second place to anyone in my regard to the work the inspectors are doing. Therefore, anything I say must not be considered in any ay critical of the individuals in the service. It is critical of the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend and of the evil genius which lies behind them and which does not allow them to do what they ought to do with reference to salary scales.
When we had an Adjournment debate on 12th November, 1954, the predecessor of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, was very frank and candid on this problem. I raised the question as I am raising it now, and he said a number of things which I should like to quote verbatim from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In answer to my complaint that the salary scales were such that we could not attract enough scientifically qualified men into the service, the Minister said that the responsibility was not entirely with his Department and that

these things had to go through the great mill of the Civil Service machine as a whole.
That is what I described a little while ago as the evil genius which looms over the shoulder of the Parliamentary Secretary and will not let him do what he would like to do.
He also said that I was
quite right in pointing out the very wide gap that now exists, for example, between a chief inspector and his colleagues in other parts of the Government service. That is an acknowledged fact, and I do not deny it.
The Parliamentary Secretary Knows quite well that these salaries for the heads of Departments were the same in 1938—£1,650. Since then, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in the salary of the Chief Inspector of Factories, but for chief inspectors of mines, taxes and education the increase has been very much greater—between 80 per cent. and 120 per cent. If we have this downgrading of the Chief Inspector we get a downgrading, pro rata, of the whole of the service.
The former Parliamentary Secretary said that in the entry grade the position vis-à-vis starting rates in industry was very unfavourable by comparison, meaning that similarly qualified men are very much better off if they go into industry. I should like to quote the fourth point he made:
One of the difficulties is to know why certain pockets in the Civil Service tend to lag behind others, or appear to have been left behind.
This was in answer to my accusation of someone or other using the hen-pecking technique against this Department, this Ministry and the servants of this Ministry, and of downgrading the Ministry. That is not too strong a word to use when we compare the service with its position before the war.
I made it quite apparent, for example, that I was disturbed about this, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have pursued him about it. Ultimately, as reported in column 1642, the former Parliamentary Secretary used these words:
I do not agree that the standard of the inspectorate is dropping at all rapidly. That is something that may come far in the future if we fail to recruit more people in the next few years.
There was no denial, it will be noted, that the standard had dropped but an assertion that it was not dropping rapidly.
My last quotation from his speech is his comment on pay. He said:
… on pay, I cannot do more than say that I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and is justified in pointing out that the factory inspectors are lagging behind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c 1642–3.]
Today we have heard that we cannot be told what is to happen to salary scales. We can only hope, therefore, that some realism will be introduced into the Department and some determination to see that we get a salary scale which will attract the sort of men we all agree we must have in sufficient numbers to see that the work which we are discussing this afternoon is well carried out.
We were told, as I have said, that there was no rapid deterioration. Let us consider what has happened since 1954. The Department still advertises regularly for recruits on the lines laid down in the regulations of 1928, and I have an advertisement here from a copy of the Manchester Guardian dated 1st June this year. I will read a phrase or two. Half-way down it reads:
Candidates must normally be university graduates, preferably in engineering or natural science, or have comparable technical qualifications.
At the beginning of the advertisement the salary scales are stated. Would-be entrants are told what they will be. Including extra duty allowance, where payable, the London salary was £533 at the age of 21, then, according to age, up to £708 at 26 or over, and rising to £969. That, I think, is about £100 or £120 a year less than the Works Scale. Those on the Works Scale are all technicians, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there has never been difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified scientists or men with professional qualifications on that scale. Indeed, when evidence was given against a claim by them for increased payment a Treasury spokesman pointed out that people were queueing up to join, that there was a waiting list of people willing to join and that therefore no increase in salary should be granted because the position proved that no increase was needed. We all accept that; if people are queueing and are willing to join the service, and if there is no difficulty in obtaining recruits, that is evidence that the salary scale is reasonable.
With the Factory Inspectorate, however, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us today, a few years ago we were 100 down, and we have only recently been getting up to standard. From the point of view of technical qualifications, recent recruitment has been deplorable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said, before the war the standard was that at least two out of three were qualified in chemistry, physics or engineering, whereas today the ratio is one in eight or one in ten.
As a result of a Question I asked the other day, I found that since March, 1953, we have appointed forty-eight inspectors, out of whom two are graduates in engineering, two in physics and two in chemistry, and not a single person had any qualification in building construction or civil engineering. Indeed, since 1945 hardly a single recruit has been brought into the service with experience in building and constructional engineering—and this at a time when we know from the last Report of the Chief Inspector, dated 1954, that out of 708 fatal accidents, 172 were in the building industry.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows that I am not overstating my case but simply giving the facts as they are—and because the facts are at long last accepted, we have this welcome news that we are to have such an increase amongst people with building experience and experience in engineering and in knowledge of chemical problems. I remember being told that in 1954, out of the ninety-five districts, thirty had no technically qualified staff, but since 1954 the figure has worsened and is now thirty-six. I call that a fairly rapid worsening of the situation.
Is it not obvious that we must think not only in terms of a terrible fire such as that which has been mentioned today? In these thirty-six districts there are no technically qualified staff; the men and women of the staff had arts degrees originally and have had to learn as they went on. Can anyone believe for a moment that, when processes become more complicated almost day by day, there is not a chance of a disaster of a chemical or engineering nature as well as from a fire? Should not, therefore, those who are in charge, at least to the extent of 50 per cent., know what the problems are and know them intimately? They should not have to learn them on


the job, but should have learned them in universities, in the first place, followed by practical experience, and should then enter the service to give us the advantage of their knowledge.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it fair to ask the Inspectorate to discuss problems with managament when the inspectors are meeting people in management who know very much more than they do because they have been specifically and technically trained, while the inspectors have not? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary accept that it is so easy for a technician to know when he is talking to a lay person, however long that lay person has been associated with a particular job; that really the technicians despise the lay people, because there must be a proper foundation of knowledge before one learns the sort of things which I think the inspectors should know when they speak with management?
Moreover, does he think it reasonable that a Member of Parliament, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), should have to bring to the attention of the House and of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance that, in his opinion, people in his division were dying of cadmium poisoning? That is what my right hon. Friend had to do. That knowledge did not come through the Inspectorate. That particular poisoning is now scheduled in this country for the first time. It is not reasonable that we should have to face that sort of thing. Was not this a failure on the part of a non-qualified Inspectorate? If it was obvious to a Member of Parliament, surely it should have been apparent to the Inspectorate.

Mr. Carr: It would seem that the hon. Member is arguing, therefore, that the whole of the Inspectorate should be technically qualified—not only that, but that the only inspectors to go to a particular factory should be technically qualified in the work of the factory he is visiting. Does he think that that would ever be a possible way of organising the work?

Dr. Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary should not quiz me like that, for at once he shows that he does not understand the problem, as I hope that he will understand it when he has been in the Ministry longer. Once technical training is obtained, a man can turn his mind to other things quite easily. If he is a

scientist he has a method, a system and a knowledge. He knows where to refer to. The Parliamentary Secretary used that argument in his brief and I was shocked to hear him say it. He must not do it. It is wrong.

Mr. Carr: With respect, I happen to have a degree in natural science, and I have always found it particularly difficult to make headway with engineers. I may be particularly stupid, but I have found others in the same difficulty. In referring to the work of the building Inspectorate, the words I used were:
In addition, there will be some reinforcement of the general inspectorate in order particularly to enable the inspectors to pay more attention to building operations and works of engineering construction.
I want the hon. Gentleman to be clear that there is an increase in the general Inspectorate to cope with the building work, and not an increase in a particular Inspectorate.

Dr. Stross: I am delighted to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary is scientifically trained. I am all the more shocked that he still sticks to what he says, but I will not pursue that, as I know that other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate.
I am not ashamed of raising the question of salary scales. I think that it is very important. In answer to a supplementary question which I put to him the other day, the Minister said that he was quite sure that it was not the Treasury which was at fault. I should like to know who is. I am perfectly sure that it is not the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. Someone is responsible, and if it is not the Treasury it must be someone inside the Civil Service. It is about time we knew who is responsible for the running down of this great service. That it is running down, I think there is no difference between us.
Why should not this Inspectorate be like the works grade? I know that the Minister has told us that it is not necessary, but, as we have pointed out again and again this afternoon, the extra cost would not be great. Why should it be necessary to take men with arts degrees and send them to Loughborough at a cost of £630 a year over and above their salaries? It costs £7,500 a year to keep twelve of them there, and that would go a long way to improve the salary scale if it were offered each and every year.
I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the country as a whole, whether it is the magistracy or the T.U.C. or factory management, there has been for long, and quite rightly, a confidence that they could really rely upon the experience and skills of the Inspectorate. Indeed, this Inspectorate of ours has been a model. We used to boast about it all over the world, and people came from all over the world to learn from it. This confidence tends to be shaken. A disaster like the Keighley fire is the sort of thing that shakes confidence. In these days of automation, is it impossible that, through lack of experience, there may be a most serious breakdown, or what is called a "run-away"?
We should protect ourselves. The public believes that the Inspectorate is tremendously knowledgeable, but I am not sure whether, with the recruitment that we have had in the last few years, this is strictly true. There are more ways than one in which I think the Ministry could bring about what we all desire—improved health and improved safety, and the saving of life and limb amongst the industrial population.
We have spoken today about safety committees. May I, before I sit down, make this suggestion, which I am sure will not be strange to the Parliamentary Secretary? In many industries, joint consultation by means of a joint standing committee composed of employers, on the one side, and the trade unions on the other—with the Factory Inspectorate sitting in—which met at regular intervals to review how the regulations were being kept and to ascertain whether they were being properly enforced or carried out, could and would be most valuable. It would mean a levelling up. The factories which are not so reliable or whose standard is poor would be levelled up until they reached the standard of those factories where the regulations are really regarded as important and are kept. Such a suggestion was made to the pottery industry recently. The committee has not been established. I hope that it will be established soon, as otherwise I shall come to the Parliamentary Secretary for his assistance.
Finally, may I say again, as I said before, that I hope it is understood by

other people who, like myself, have a great affection for the Ministry, and for the Factory Inspectorate in particular, that any criticisms I make are rightly directed at the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend?

5.58 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: This debate is now drawing to its close, and I think it essential that all those who want to say something should be allowed to do so. I shall, therefore, drastically cut what I have to say. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) noticed that I wanted to catch your eye, Sir Leonard, he growled "stick to coal", in his usual endearing manner. I shall do so. I have been in coal mining for many years, but for some years now I have been managing factories, and I believe that in its regulations the coal mining industry has something to teach those whose duty it is to see that the Factories Acts are applied.
Those who manage mines have to acquire a sound knowledge of the law relating to safety and to management. They must pass a very stiff examination before they can become colliery managers. Every day reports about the condition of the mine and of the machinery in and about it are flowing to the manager's table. The manager is never out of touch with what is happening in the mine or in its engineering shops in respect to safety. All those reports are flowing in every day and must be signed by him individually. He cannot say that he did not see them. He must see them, and sign them, every day.
Nothing comparable takes place in factories. When I left mining and went into factory management of a fair number of factories, I was astonished to find two main differences from coal mining. First, I found an abysmal ignorance among many managers of the Factories Acts. Indeed, when I thought that it was my duty to learn the Factories Acts, as I had learned the Mines and Quarries Act, I asked at the factories for a copy, and I discovered that it was as difficult to find the Factories Acts in a factory as it was to find the Bible in a manse. Some large factories have officials to deal with the Acts involved, but most small factories have not. Therefore, it is vital that the manager should know the law.
Secondly, I have found a surprisingly low level of person employed as factory inspectors. I say that with great respect to factory inspectors, but they were the type attracted by the salary level. They did not reach the standard required for mines inspectors years ago. We used to enjoy bringing the mines inspector into the board room and having his advice, but that would certainly not be possible with the type of person whom I met as factory inspector. Nor would he expect it.
In Scotland, some females are employed as factory inspectors. I heard an hon. Member opposite say that women were a "dead loss" as factory inspectors, and I quite agree. When a factory inspector speaks to a chief engineer, he or she should be able to do so with knowledge; otherwise, the inspector will receive no respect. Frankly, I do not think that females should be employed in this capacity unless they are highly qualified.
I come to my main point, which is this. The Parliamentary Secretary reduced the question of accidents to a matter of statistics, but an accident in a factory can ruin the life of a person, or it can shatter the hopes and aspirations of his family. Yet in this country any factory, large or small, can be managed by anybody. One can appoint an old friend or a pal from a university. Today, many accountants are being appointed. The law does not say that he shall have any knowledge of the job or of the law of safety. I suggest that the Minister should consider requiring a certificate of competency to be obtained by anybody wishing to undertake factory management. No man should be allowed to manage a factory unless he has previously passed an examination which ensures that at least he has a sound knowledge of the Factories Acts. That should be a minimum requirement. This is a vital point.
I have noted the infrequency with which factory inspectors visit factories in Scotland. The conclusion one forms is that there are not enough inspectors. These factory inspectors ocasionally have had to prosecute firms and have to go into the courts to conduct their own prosecution. I have seen female inspectors cross-examining managers of big firms, and, frankly, it looked ridiculous. I thought that the inspector would be far better employed carrying out her duties inspecting

factories, and leaving the law to lawyers.
Another aspect of factory inspection which should receive the attention of my right hon. Friend is the electrical side. In these days of complex electrical installations it is important that we should have the benefit of the advice of factory inspectors with wide knowledge of electricity. Yet the electrical inspectors get to the factories under their control only about once in three years.
There are many matters which I, in common with other hon. Members, would like to see improved, but I have made one point which the time at my disposal allows me to make, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it consideration.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) said with truth that there is great ignorance of the Factories Acts among factory managers, but I should have thought that that was something which factory inspectors ought to put right. It is one of their jobs.
I would join issue with the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about women factory inspectors. I have no particular brief in this matter, but I can say that in my experience I have found women factory inspectors who are competent and on top of their job. In my view, the Minister ought to consider this question of factory inspectors conducting their cases in court. No doubt, at times factory inspectors, whether men or women, would be at a disadvantage in this capacity, and this duty should be undertaken by lawyers rather than by factory inspectors. However, so far as my experience is concerned, I would not care to argue with factory inspectors in such circumstances whether they were men or women, so long as they were competent.
One point that has emerged very clearly in this debate is that the suggestions which the Minister has made with regard to the increase in the Inspectorate do not, in my view, go nearly far enough. A number of figures have been quoted. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) mentioned a figure of 180,000 accidents in the factory inspectors' reports. But that is nothing like the total number of accidents which cause absence from work.
The average number of claims made to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for industrial accidents each year is something like 750,000. That is nearly four times the number of notified industrial accidents, all of them causing absence from work and loss to the employee, as well as claims upon the Treasury. In fact, the average amount of such claims is £10 million a year.
I have estimated that the lass of working time amounts to 150 million hours, which is the equivalent of about 60,000 workers wholly unemployed for a year. This is very nearly one-third of the present total unemployed, and at a modest estimate the amount of production lost through accidents is no less than £100 million a year, which is a very high proportion of the national product, quite apart from the cost in dead, maimed and injured, which it is impossible to compute in terms of money but which is very heavy indeed in terms of human suffering.
These figures apply only to accidents. They disregard the loss to industry through industrial disease. In many ways the factory inspector's job is to prevent conditions which give rise to industrial disease. Therefore, the figures which I have quoted for injury alone will be very much larger if we consider industrial disease as well.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to compare the £10 million cost to the Exchequer in industrial benefits and the £100 million cost to the national product in lost production with the £500,000 cost of the Factory Inspectorate. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton that the Inspectorate should be doubled.
We need more specialists, but we also want a much larger accretion of strength to the general Inspectorate. If the Minister should double the strength, it would be one of the finest and most sensible economies that he could make, and it would repay ten-fold to the Exchequer and a hundred-fold to the national product.
Speaking as an employer, I have a particular horror of accidents. I am very severe with my own employees in the case of any infringement of the safety regulations, and I believe that I have now inculcated into them a respect for

all kinds of regulations. I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newton speak frankly and apparently without any condemnation of the workers who will thrust aside the guards on machinery in order that they may achieve greater speed and larger earnings, particularly if they are employed on piece work. That is something which should always be condemned, but whatever we do as employers of workers, we know that accidents will happen. I am sure that if there were sufficient factory inspectors to permit one inspection per factory each year, and to permit also of the inspectors going back to check up and see that their instructions had been carried out, the toll of accidents would be at least halved.
At present, we know that insufficient visits are made, and we know that in 1954 the inspectors were able to carry out only half their programme. There is no wonder at that when we consider that we have 300,000 industrial establishments and only 360 inspectors. Even in the industrial areas, four visits a day is the maximum possible, while in the rural areas they can sometimes manage only two, or perhaps three. They have to see that all factory orders are being complied with in respect of cleanliness, temperature, ventilation, lighting, methods, conditions, construction and maintenance, hoists, lifts, protection of steam boilers and a hundred and one other things.
There is also the office work involved in the preparation of cases and reports and the investigation of complaints and accidents. The factory inspector has to take cases to court, attend inquests, undertake committee work, give lectures in technical schools and is supposed to do the vital job of detecting new hazards in industry. Now the Parliamentary Secretary has announced they will have to master the mass of new orders which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
It is a highly important job, requiring very considerable knowledge and experience of industry, as well as academic qualifications. With their present personnel, they cannot carry out routine in spections within one year in more than half our factories. What are these routine inspections like? In a good factory, the inspector will come in, have a look at the accident book, look at the juvenile


register, walk through the machine shop to see that all the fences are in place, make one or two comments on the need for lime-washing and go away for another two years. That may be all that is necessary in a good factory, in which he knows regard is had to safety measures.
What I should like to see is some positive action. I should like the inspector to have time to call the chaps together and give them a talk, in large as well as small factories, because I believe that the incidence of accidents in small factories is higher than it is in large factories. The inspector should call them together and reinforce what the management are trying to do to make the workers accident prevention conscious. He should have time to talk to them and create some sort of enthusiasm. We know that at present he has no time to do these things.
When he goes into a bad factory, or perhaps one newly taken over, the chaps may be on piece work and may be foolishly co-operating with a bad management by sacrificing safety measures in the interests of speed. Of course, the inspector orders them to fence the machinery, provide guards and do everything that common sense and decency should have told them to do anyway, but he does not go back within a few weeks to see that his instructions have been carried out. He has not got the time to do it, although there is a clear instruction to that effect.
He does not prosecute the employer, and I will give way to the Parliamentary Secretary if he can quote me one instance from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories in which a prosecution has taken place for unfenced machinery or any other misdeed on the part of the employer until there has been either a fatal or very serious accident. They prosecute only after somebody is dead, and it just is not good enough. It is quite scandalous that we have to wait for death or serious injury before something is done about it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I do not blame the factory inspectors for this situation for one second. They are a first-class body of men. The real culprits have been successive Governments, because this neglect has not just happened but has been going on for a long time. The only reason we have to put this case to the present Minister is because

he is the one now responsible, but it is a scandal that it should have continued for so long.
I submit that if factory inspectors are to do their jobs properly and visit every factory once a year, to go back on check visits and do constructive, forward-looking work in this way, then we ought to double their numbers at present and we ought to give them more money. We must improve the standard of qualifications of the men and women who are to enter the Inspectorate, and the position in this regard is worse than it was before the war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said, the difference in salary with comparable people in the Civil Service is at least £100 to £120 against the factory inspector. When one compares their salaries with what they could get in industry, there is no wonder that recruitment is poor, and that once people get inside the Factory Inspectorate, they soon come to their senses. I therefore hope that these things will be altered as quickly as possible.
I would say to the Minister that the Inspectorate is discharging functions of vital importance to nearly half the nation's working population. The inspectors have the job of saving life and limb, and there are not enough of them for the task they have to do. There will not be enough until we pay them properly, and this is a matter of the greatest importance. I hope the Minister will be able to convince the Chancellor that, contrary to the belief that the present policy is saving manpower and money, it is wasting it. I urge him to spend another £500,000 in order to save £10 million.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) asked a Question about the number of days lost through the causes which we have been discussing today, and I recall that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman received a great deal of publicity in the national and local Press. I was surprised at the extent of the public reaction, and at the number of people who personally expressed to me their surprise at the number of days lost, and their concern about the matter.
We recognise, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, that the surprise of people about these figures


is not an indication that the position is any worse than it has been in the past. The trouble is that we have not yet recognised the extent to which the country has been wasting some of its limited resources of manpower in this way.
We recognise that there has been an improvement in the figures for the days and hours lost. Moreover, the figures themselves do not reflect the increase that has taken place in the total amount of manpower in employment in this country. In other words, a percentage figure gives a far better indication of the situation than the actual figures. Nevertheless, the figures of time lost from industrial sickness, injuries and accident are indeed very disturbing even now. In comparison, even our records of hours lost from industrial disputes are of comparatively manageable proportions.
Quite rightly, we devote a great deal of our time to the problem of improving relations between the parties in industry, but how much more should we do to try to lessen this industrial sickness and injury? Here, I believe, we have the greatest potential reservoir for further increases of output and production. Britain can no longer afford this wastage of her limited resources.
I want to mention one aspect of this question which has not received much attention, if any at all, in the report of the sub-committee of my right hon. Friend's Department. I refer to the importance of bright and attractively illuminated workshops. I am sure that some of the older industries, with their older types of plant and workshop, have suffered under great disabilities in this respect, and I respectfully suggest—certainly, it has been my own experience—that when we have a well-aired, well-lighted and brightly-painted building, we are much more likely to create the sort of mentality which goes with the desire for safety in factories, and to get rid of the causes of trouble.
This has been my experience; and we, in the Development Area of South Wales, have seen a very good example shown by very many of the newer factories on the trading estates and in other parts of the Development Area. I am quite sure that this is an important aspect of the subject, and I am surprised to note that it has received no mention in the Report. I do

not want to exaggerate the importance of it, but I want to know to what extent my hon. Friend's Department can influence the renovation of the older factories to bring them into line with the newer ones.
As regards the Inspectorate, I agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be undesirable to have any fixed proportion of technical personnel. I am sure that it was quite reasonable for the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), in his very interesting speech, to stress the importance of bringing the force up to establishment, and, indeed, to call for a greater increase. I am sure that he will also agree that my hon. Friend was on sound ground when suggesting that the first thing is to get the force up to establishment, before we try to increase it.
On both sides of the Committee it is felt that there is a strong case for an increase in the number of inspectors. We are glad that my hon. Friend has given an assurance that that is being considered. He has told us that the matter of salaries is to some extent sub judice. The Factory Inspectorate, like the police forces and all those bodies which, during the days of unemployment, attracted people because they afforded security of employment, have suffered since the war. It may be that to maintain these services, and particularly the Factory Inspectorate, at the desired level of strength and of quality, we shall have to pay considerably more.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) made a very good point, I thought, when he said that the extra expense might be more than compensated in the savings which would result from the prevention of injury and disease. I hope that the Government will consider this aspect of the question.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I wish to address the House quite briefly on one rather narrow point, which is nevertheless of some importance, because it does involve the possible saving of human lives. Before I do so, may I first join in the tributes which have been paid to the Factory Inspectorate? It is my duty from time to time to meet members of the Inspectorate, particularly when there has been a fatality in industry, and I have always been impressed by the very high standard of service which most of them give to the community, and the


very conscientious way in which they discharge their duties. There are undoubtedly many men and women who are alive today, or who have not suffered injury, because of the work which the inspectors have done, and because of the co-operation which they get from the majority of industrial users.
Why the record should be so good when there are so few inspectors is something of a miracle; perhaps it helps us to appreciate the value of the services which these men and women give. When one considers that about half the total productive processes in this country are carried out in some 50,000 establishments with less than 400 people, one can well be amazed that the inspection and supervision of industry continues as smoothly and efficiently as it does.
The particular matter to which I wish to draw attention arises from the Docks Regulations made in 1934. I did give rather short notice to the Minister's Office that I proposed to raise this Question, but I shall quite understand if I cannot get any answer today. It may well be that the Docks Regulations are some of those to be revised in the programme which the Parliamentary Secretary outlined this afternoon.
The particular Regulation to which I wish to draw attention is Regulation 2 (b), which is contained in the Regulations issued in 1934, Statutory Rule and Order No. 279. The Regulation reads:
Provision for the rescue from drowning of persons employed shall be made and maintained, and shall include"—
there follows then a reference to life-saving appliances, to which I need not refer. The Regulation goes on to say:
(b) Means at or near the surface of the water at reasonable intervals, for enabling a person immersed to support himself or escape from the water, which shall be reasonably adequate having regard to all the circumstances.
This Regulation is, in fact, based on one first introduced in 1904, under the authority of the old Factories and Workshops Act, 1901. I gather that the Regulation has been incorporated in the 1934 code in almost identical terms, and it follows, therefore, that this Regulation has existed in this form for some fifty years.
The surprising fact about this 50 years old Regulation is that it seems that very

few dock authorities in the country have ever done anything to comply with it. The dock workers inform me that the only provision found in many docks and quays is ladders some 200 feet apart, or in some cases no less than 300 feet apart. It really cannot be supposed that ladders at that distance apart are adequate to comply with the Regulations. Such a distance assumes that every person is able to swim some 150 feet, in whichever direction is open to him; and if one remembers that most workers who fall into the docks will be fully clothed, and the weather may be cold, one realises that it is expecting an effort that even strong swimmers could not undertake.
The courts have recently expressed the view that at any rate 300 feet is not a reasonable interval. In some cases, I am told, the ladders were in fact built in the docks before the Regulations were introduced, so that it is quite clear that they really were not placed with any satisfaction of the Regulation in contemplation. I should have thought, in view of this recent judicial expression of opinion in the courts, that the time was now ripe either for the Regulation to be rewritten, if it is not clear, or for the Ministry to take some action.
Naval architects in technical journals have suggested that ladders are certainly not the only means by which the Regulation could be satisfied. It is suggested, for example, that floating spars could be lowered down the dockside when a ship is being loaded or unloaded. These floating spars are made of timber 3 inches or 4 inches in diameter. They would enable a person who fell over to have a reasonable chance of striking out and grasping something. They could either be continuous along the dock when a ship is in position or else at frequent intervals. Floating spars would certainly give a chance to a man who fell in, which is, I suppose, all that one could expect from the Regulations. The great advantage of floating spars, as it seems to me, would be that they could be taken out of the water when the ship was not there if it were thought that they might be a nuisance to small craft using the docks.
There are other means as well. One or two dock authorities, have, I gather, used vertical hanging chains, some 10 feet or 20 feet apart, so that a man may, if he falls in, have a chance of swimming


or kicking out a few feet in order to grasp something. Recessed bars have been suggested as another means, such bars being let into the side of the dock. At any rate, it seems to me that some more active effort ought to be made by dock authorities, instead of the situation we find in so many docks today.
It may well be that the Regulation itself is rather difficult to construe. The words
Means at or near the surface of the water at reasonable intervals
and the immediately following words,
for enabling a person immersed to support himself or escape from the water
are clear; but the difficulty, as I see it, comes with the words,
which shall be reasonably adequate having regard to all the circumstances.
The dock authorities may well have thought that this provision was so vague, giving them no indication of what was reasonable or required, that they have done nothing about it. But, in addition to the recently expressed judicial opinion that an interval of 300 feet is not reasonable, the courts have also suggested that it is wrong for dock authorities to make no attempt to comply with the Regulations. In view of that very strong Judicial opinion, I hope that the Minister may be able to give an indication of his attitude and that of the Inspectorate. Another surprising thing is this.
Although, the Regulations, in one form or other, have existed for fifty years, as far as I can trace there has never been a single prosecution. It is not that people do not fall off dock walls and get drowned, because they do, but I cannot trace a single instance of any prosecution under these Regulations. It may be that the construing of the Regulations is regarded as too difficult. In that case, I certainly hope that their revision will be included in the programme announced today by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that the explanation cannot be that the Ministry is satisfied that the Regulations are being observed in the docks, for my information from those concerned all over the country is emphatic that the Regulations are not being complied with. I should like to know whether there have, in fact, been any prosecutions, and if not, what is the reason.
I have tried to get figures from the hon. Gentleman's Department of the numbers of fatalities involved, but it has been explained to me that this is difficult because these fatalities in docks are not recorded separately from the figures of other deaths. Then there are those who fall over the side whilst under the influence of intoxicants, and it has never been suggested that any regulations could save them. It has, however, been estimated in one fairly large dock area, whose name I do not propose to mention, that four or five people a year are drowned in that one dock system alone. If we multiply this by the number of docks throughout the country, it could well be that 20 or 30 people die yearly from drowning in the docks, whose death could be prevented if a reasonable attempt were made to comply with Regulation 2 (b). If that is the case, it is incumbent upon the House and upon the Minister to take every practical step to see that some chance is given to people when they fall into the water.
I am profoundly dissatisfied with what I believe to be the position throughout the docks, and I hope that, if not today, at some time in the future, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure the House that action is contemplated.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: It is a good thing that we should be able from time to time to discuss the operation of the Factories Acts and the prevention of accidents in industry. First, however, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that I was unable to be present to listen to the whole of his speech, but I had other duties elsewhere in the House. I will, however, read in HANSARD what he said, and I will do so with the greatest of interest.
I do not want to deal with the question of whether there are sufficient or too few factory inspectors. I am one of those who likes to see as few inspectors as possible, but if the need for them is proved, it is essential that we should have adequate numbers and that they should have the necessary technical qualifications to do their job in industry, particularly as many new problems of electricity, and so on, now come into industrial operation. It is essential that the inspectors should be qualified to advise and to deal with this kind of problem.
I want for a few moments to refer to accidents and injuries caused by fire. From the Report by the Industrial Sub-Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council, it is difficult to see exactly what figures are involved in this type of accident, but I have no doubt that they are significant. What we cannot see, even from the numbers of accidents involved, is the loss of production and, particularly in the case of fire, the loss of valuable industrial equipment and stocks.
Reference has been made by a number of hon. Members to the tragic fire at Keighley not so many months ago. That was near to my own constituency, and all of us in Yorkshire and in the North of England were shocked by that tragic occurrence. The matter was impressed very much on my mind the other day when visiting a mill in the North of England which had recently been taken over by a new concern, which was no longer manufacturing textiles but intended to use it for another purpose. All the machinery had been removed from the mill and at the time of my visit the new owners were paying particular attention to the fire-fighting apparatus in the building. They had employed a local person with specialised knowledge of the subject.
They had removed from the walls the rows of fire extinguishers, of the red, conical type, which had no doubt been there for many years. These bits of equipment were taken to pieces and were found to be almost 100 per cent. useless. For years, no doubt, the chemicals inside them had been corroding the metal parts. The nozzles through which the foam was intended to flow had become corroded and useless. As I saw these bits of apparatus taken down and how useless they were, I thought of factory inspectors and others who on their visits probably see rows of similar apparatus, gleaming behind a new coat of paint perhaps every few years, making a shining selection which could almost be called whited sepulchres but which when needed to be used might be quite useless.
One or two of the extinguishers which I saw had retained the necessary chemical composition to cause the proper reaction, but instead of the fluid coming out through the appropriate nozzle, the whole thing had exploded; and had it needed to be used, it would merely have covered the individual who was trying

to extinguish the fire. In addition, the fire hoses had been removed from the walls. They had been there for many years, possibly for as long as half a century, and these also were found to be quite useless.
Listening to the debate today and hearing of the various functions performed by different local authority officers in trying to tackle this problem, I wondered whether we go far enough. On occasion when going around our industrial towns, which have their excellent fire brigades, one sees men who are constantly on duty polishing the fire engines and with nothing else to do. It occurs to me whether they would not be better employed, particularly as they are all highly trained in every aspect of fire fighting, in going round to some of the local factories and works and systematically going through the existing fire-fighting apparatus.

Mr. Lee: Does the hon. Member realise that they are not permitted to go into factories unless invited to do so?

Mr. Drayson: I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned that. It is a fact that these fire prevention officers are not allowed to go into factories unless they are invited. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I consider that fire-fighting officers, in the same way as those who are concerned with civil defence, should have a map and plans of their area. They should know of all the likely places where fires might break out and they should be able systematically to go round and see that the equipment on the spot is properly maintained.
However, I saw only the other day those examples of old and defective equipment, equipment which had become defective by age, and I am very glad of the opportunity of this debate to draw the Minister's attention to the grave possibility that in other places, too, defensive equipment is likewise old and defective. I am sure that he is aware of that possibility. I think he and the local authorities should have power to enter places where fires are likely to occur, to satisfy themselves that all reasonable precautions are being taken against the danger of fire and that the fire-fighting equipment is up to date and effective. By this means many lives and limbs could be saved, and valuable industrial assets, too, which otherwise may be put out of commision.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I wish briefly to bring forward some matters that were put to the Parliamentary Secretary on 20th June by the Foundry Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and also by T.U.C. experts on the matter. I must say that the union leaders have a very high regard for the Parliamentary Secretary's experience and background knowledge of foundries and also for his sympathetic interest in the matter, but they do not feel that everything that could be done is being done. Indeed, when one considers the mass of human misery resulting from pneumoconiosis and foundry accidents one feels that more action must be taken. I think that if we Members of Parliament were subject to the same risks and dangers as foundrymen no expense would be spared to avoid those dangers.

Mr. Hobson: My hon. Friend has referred to the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I have been a member of that union for thirty years. He said there have been communications of a complimentary character between the Department and the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I think we ought to place it on record that the communications which have been made have pointed to the fact that the Factories Acts do not cover men engaged in maintenance work, if they have accidents.

Mr. Allaun: I do not quite see the relevance of that remark. I was referring to the recent visit to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Foundry Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.
The attitude towards many of these dangers is sometimes, I fear, "out of sight out of mind". It is possible even with existing knowledge to forestall quite easily many of the dangers which at present exist even in small works, even old works. During the past week I visited in my own constituency Hodgkinson's foundry, an old and a small foundry. Because the management was concerned about these matters it introduced an entirely enclosed knockout, so that the small particles of metal, which previously entered the lungs of the workers, are now removed from the foundry air. If this can be done in a small and old foundry, how much better placed are the large foundries to carry out such precautions.
The unions made certain recommendations to the Parliamentary Secretary. They called his attention, first, to the question of premature retirement. It is a striking fact that between 1931 and 1951 the number of men aged from 55 to 64 in the foundry industry fell by 35 per cent., whereas the total numbers employed fell by only 8 per cent. That suggests that men are completely worked out by the age of 50. It is a terrible thing that a man approaching the age of 50, while not too old to find a job, should be too old to keep a job because of the exertions of his previous employment—strangely enough, even in the more mechanised foundries. It is significant that of all the unions, only three, those of the constructional engineers, the miners and one other, have a higher incidence of industrial injury than the foundrymen's union.
More detailed surveys should be taken of the foundry industry. In the 1954 Report, 385 new cases of pneumoconiosis in steel and iron foundries came to light. I do not know whether the 1955 figures are available. I should very much like to know, and I should also like to know whether they show a further worsening of the position.
Even with existing knowledge it is possible to prevent industrial disease from dust. For instance, I believe that the unions are absolutely right in saying that every abrasive wheel should be fitted with an exhaust to control the dust. Similarly, every dressing shop should have adequate ventilation by statutory requirement, not merely by recommendation. Every pneumatic chisel can be fitted with an exhaust hood. Recently, I saw a remarkable film of the excellent work done by Mr. Laurie, of the Factory Inspectorate. Here is an invention which withdraws the dust created by the pneumatic chisel. It is attached to the chisel itself. This invention is in existence, but I wonder to what extent it is being used. That is the important point.
Another suggestion, not raised by the unions, but generally raised by many foundrymen, is that the weight of a moulding box when fully rammed with sand should be stamped on it, because that would indicate to the crane men and the foundrymen whether the crane is adequate to deal with the weight.
Mr. W. N. Lord has been able to trap the fumes given off by a mould before


cooling, and it seems to me that this may be of value not only to foundrymen but also to the general public. If cancer can be caused by fumes, then the trapping of fumes may be a solution of that problem for the general public.
I know that the time for the debate is running out, and I must keep my remarks short, but I must point out that, although the Garrett Report made certain recommendations, there is yet nothing to prevent even new foundries from being built at standards far below those suggested in the Report. We recently passed the Clean Air Act, under which, on a certain date, all furnaces, old and new, have to be of a certain standard. In the foundry industry there is no requirement about the standard of the furnaces, and there is no standard in existence even for the new furnaces which are being laid down at this moment. It should be laid down by Statute. Enough money should be provided to the Factory Department to enable it to undertake full research into all these problems. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to go some way to meet the recommendations of the men and the unions most closely concerned.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: It has been my good fortune to listen to practically the whole of the debate. I share that honour with others and particularly with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, but fortunately for us this is a vast subject and it has many facets. On the question of the kind of Inspectorate we want, we had as usual a very eloquent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). He and some of my hon. Friends veered definitely towards the scientifically-minded inspector. I am not so sure that we should become unduly obsessed with that aspect. What we want is a competent Inspectorate, adequate to the need.
There is much to be said for the knowledgeable layman in the Inspectorate, as there is, of course, for the technician or the scientifically-qualified inspector. One may have a first-class general knowledge and the other a specific knowledge of a particular subject. The great responsibility upon the inspector, however, is not to impress the management

with the kind of scientific knowledge he possesses when he turns up for an interview but to see that the provisions of the Factories Acts are fully implemented.
That lies with the scientific and technical advisers at the Ministry and is not sweetly reposing in the breast of a particular inspector. We do not need a technician to go all the way to Keighley to tell various firms there that they ought to have a fire alarm put in a place where it can be sounded and from which everybody in the works can hear it.

Mr. Hobson: A police officer could do that.

Mr. Moyle: Yes, a police officer would be adequate to the need.
The increase in the rate of accidents in the building industry is very disturbing. When the Parliamentary Secretary kindly gave way to me, he referred to one aspect of my inquiry as relating to the engineering industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own industrial experience, the building industry has undergone revolutionary changes. He will know that part of the industry has undergone an astonishing change by reason of the use of steel skeletons in building. The massive buildings of today are virtually erected by the use of steel skeletons and a tremendous amount of that kind of work is carried out.
I was very glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that he is well aware of these developments. I hope that the whole matter is being reviewed and that regulations will be drawn up in such a way as to do everything possible to protect the men who take amazing risks in the course of their employment and who, incidentally, do not receive wages commensurate with the risks that they take.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke of industrial health and referred to the statement made recently by the Minister of Labour, who astonished the House of Commons by saying that 280 million man-hours were lost each year and that at any given moment I million people were absent from work through injury or sickness.

Mr. Carr: Man-days.

Mr. Moyle: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lee: Two hundred and eighty million man-days per annum.

Mr. Moyle: In any large industrial establishment, conducted by an intelligent and progressive management, there can be found a fine industrial health service with a proper surgery, with nurses in attendance and a doctor available. Minor injuries and illnesses are treated on the spot. Not only is that an economy to the industry concerned, but it relieves our overcrowded hospitals. While that is true of large industrial establishments, hundreds of small factories have nothing better than a first-aid service which is supplied because one or more employees have undertaken to study first-aid under the auspices of the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
Would it not be possible for the Ministry, in conjunction with the Factory Inspectorate, to conduct a survey in each locality and have the local authority informed of those industrial establishments which provide physio-therapeutic services? The local authority should keep a register of those services and they should be made known to any management or owner of a factory, small or large, so that where there is no service available and an injury occurs on the job, advantage can be taken of the nearest adjacent service. I hope that all these points, and particularly the last that I have mentioned, will receive the attention of the Ministry.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Barber],—put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NUCLEAR AND ALLIED RADIATIONS (HAZARDS TO MAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House take note of the Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations (Command Paper No. 9780).—[Mr. Turton.]

7.0 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: It will be recalled that last year we debated a Motion—which I had the privilege of moving—urging the Government to give further consideration to the longterm and remote effect of continuing nuclear explosions and asking that a representative conference of scientists of international repute should be convened to consider the matter. Subsequently, the Prime Minister announced that the Medical Research Council would appoint a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Himsworth, the Secretary, to review existing scientific evidence on the medical aspects of nuclear and allied radiations. This Report, which has been signed unanimously by the committee, is the one which we are to discuss today.
I believe that the importance of this debate transcends that of any other because only if we apply ourselves to the question of controlling nuclear radiation can our plans for the future have any significance at all. I should like, first, to pay tribute to those eminent scientists who have made this important contribution to our knowledge of a subject which still, in some respects, has only been touched upon.
It is difficult to believe that only twenty-five years have passed since Lord Rutherford himself expressed doubts about the possibility of obtaining the energy known to exist in the atom, and it was not until just before the last war that fission of the uranium nucleus was discovered. Even more important than the energy produced by fission was the fact the fission could be produced by a neutron which was capable of setting up a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.
Since those days events have moved quickly, and even since the last debate there have been interchanges between scientists of world repute which have added to our store of knowledge. May I direct the attention of the House to


the work and discussions that took place in the United Nations Conference at Geneva in August, 1955, when, on atomic energy alone, 450 papers were read and 600 were submitted and available for reference? Now that this Report of the Medical Research Council is published, we must become, if we are to take our duty to humanity and posterity seriously, more alert to the appalling potential dangers of this new form of energy.
While the committee was convened primarily for the purpose of examing the radiation hazards of nuclear weapons, it has very wisely extended the scope of its investigations to medical and other peaceful forms of nuclear energy. In my opinion—and on this subject we can speak only for ourselves because it is a highly scientific and difficult matter—the part of the Report which calls for the most serious concern deals with the effect of radioactive strontium, found in relative abundance among fission products. Strontium in the fall-out can contaminate drinking water, crops or soil where it can be absorbed by the plants.
Subsequently, man and animal will receive strontium both in their food and in their water. Strontium is easily absorbed and then stored for long periods in the bones of the body. Here it can give rise to bone tumours and, by irradiating, the bone marrow, to aplastic anaemia or leukaemia. Most of the scientific bodies who have investigated this matter support the conclusions on this subject which I shall mention to the House.
I say that the evidence that the young are more likely to develop these conditions is quite clear. One of the most revealing studies is the relationship between the radiation dose and the incidence of leukaemia, a very serious disease, in patients treated with X-rays for ankylosing spondylitis, a crippling form of spine disease.
The results compared with those recorded of leukaemia among the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposed to the radiations from atom bombs provide clear evidence of a relationship between the dose of radiation and the incidence of leukaemia. The findings of the United States report and that of the Medical Research Council Committee are substantially the same about the danger of radioactive strontium in the fall-out.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to page 80, paragraph 4 (b) of the Report where the Committee emphasized the importance of the effect of strontium in the bone. It says:
Account must be taken, however, of the internal radiation from the radioactive strontium which is beginning to accumulate in bone. At its present level, no detectable increase in the incidence of ill-effects is to be expected. Nevertheless, recognising all the inadequacy of our present knowledge, we cannot ignore the possibility that, if the rate of firing increases and particularly if greater numbers of thermonuclear weapons are used, we could within the lifetime of some now living, be approaching levels at which ill-effects might be produced in a small number of the population.
In my opinion, this constitutes a most serious warning. It will be recalled that in the course of last year's debate, following a report issued by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, particular importance was attached to the genetic changes likely to ensue from exposure to radiation.
Although the committee of the Medical Research Council gave careful consideration to this and to the likely effects of doubling the natural rate of mutation and the amount of radiation necessary to produce that doubling, it formed the opinion that the knowledge available on the subject was not sufficient to enable it to come to a firm conclusion, although I think it only fair to say that in a very interesting letter to the Lancet recently Professor J. B. S. Haldane suggests that in some respect there has been an understatement of the possible genetic effects.
However, it is not for any one of us to take sides in this matter. These scientists are honest men who try to come to their conclusions, and if Professor Haldane dissents from some of the conclusions of the scientists who have served us well on this committee, it is interesting to observe his comments on the subject, but it is impossible for the layman to identify himself with one side or another.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I checked that with a member of the Committee. Apparently it was not called upon to consider at all some of the genetic effects. The right hon. Gentleman told me last week that certain facts on this which are not before the Committee will be published very shortly.

Dr. Summerskill: I am quite sure that the House will welcome any more information on this important matter.
However, despite the insufficient material on which to base a recommendation regarding any specific dose which may be innocuous to the population from the genetic point of view, the Committee was of the opinion that the level should not be more than twice the natural background of radiation, and that it might be appreciably lower. On further examination of the various sources of radiation, the surprising result emerged that the biggest dose amounting to 22 per cent. of the natural background is received from diagnostic radiology. It must give us all cause for concern when it is realised that this dose is about five times higher than that assessed in a survey carried out in 1952.
Last month the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America published a report commenting upon this very serious aspect of diagnostic radiology. There are certain miscellaneous sources of radiation, such as the X-rays used for fitting shoes, the radiation from luminious dials, television and types of high voltage projection equipment, mentioned in the Report, all of which involve a small degree of danger, and the Committee is quite unequivocal about the shoe fitting practice and expresses the hope that it will be abandoned except when prescribed for orthopaedic reasons.
This debate will be a comparatively short one, and, therefore, I can only touch on those aspects of the matter which I think are of primary importance, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to a speech made by Sir Ernest Rock Carling last week at Brighton to the British Medical Association. Sir Ernest Rock Carling is the consultant adviser to the Home Office and the Ministries of Health and Supply, and, furthermore, he is a member of the Committee which was appointed to examine the whole question.
He spoke to the British Medical Association on "Occupational radioactivity and the general practitioner". I propose to read only one extract, and this extract is the least horrifying of certain extracts that I might have chosen from his speech, which was given in The Times last Friday. He said:
The list of uses for radioactive sources in industry lengthened month by month; this meant that more and more people were being brought within its range. Geneticists feared

a deterioration of the average intelligence, an increase in mental disorder, and a considerable increase in the financial burden that would fall upon the healthy in maintaining the unhealthy in hospitals. It was surely obvious that mankind should strive to minimise any and every source of radiation. There must be provision for educating every person in whom the radiation hazard had existed. All potential parents ought to take the utmost care to avoid the accumulation of the smallest dose of radiation lest their children pay the penalty.
In view of the importance of this Report to the human race—a man like Sir Ernest Rock Carling, after having sat on the Committee for a long time, would not go to the British Medical Association and speak in those terms unless he felt that this was a matter of some urgency—I thought that on Monday last week it was alarming to hear the Minister of Health, when answering Questions on this matter, adopt a complacent attitude, and, indeed, reveal that he was not, apparently, aware of the most serious conclusions of the Committee which was appointed to report on this matter.
In my opinion, this Report is of such importance that a statement should have been made to the House from the Minister, who, after all, is responsible for protecting the health of the people. Yet, once more the Opposition have had to initiate a debate on this subject. We initiated it last year, and we have had to do the same this year. It was left to a distinguished member of the Committee which had already reported to the Minister to make a statement on the subject to the British Medical Association at Brighton last Friday, a statement which I feel should have come from the Government Front Bench.
This Report should not, in my opinion, be regarded simply as an intellectual exercise, but should be read in conjunction with some of the most recent speeches on atomic warfare, bearing in mind what has been reiterated in the Report, namely, that it is the scale and not the nature of the hazard which is new.
Mr. Charles Wilson, the very forthright Secretary of the Defence in the United States, said on 29th June before the Symington Senate Committee—this was reported by the Manchester Guardian:
Our capability of inflicting this devastation is not static. It is improving and will continue to improve.
General James Gavin, Chief of Army Research and Development in the United


States, also gave evidence before this Committee. He was asked this question:
If we got into a nuclear war and our strategic air force made an assault in force against Russia with nuclear weapons so that the weapons exploded in a way where the prevailing winds would carry them south-east over Russia, what would be the effect in the way of death?
General Gavin replied:
Current planning estimates run on the order of several hundred million deaths. That would be either way depending on which way the wind blew. If the wind blew to the south-east they would be mostly in the U.S.S.R., although they would extend into the Japanese and perhaps down into the Phillippine area. If the wind blew the other way they would extend well back into Western Europe.
General Gavin's statement bears out what the Committee says in paragraph 290, in page 69:
Given a sufficient number of bombs, no part of the world would escape exposure to biologically significant levels of radiation. To a greater or less degree, a legacy of genetic damage would be incurred, and an increased incidence of delayed effects on the individual would probably be induced.
Apparently only the wind will determine whether the same bomb will destroy an enemy or an ally or damage them genetically. As the wind is not confined to frontiers, the lethal fall-out which it carries may affect both ally and enemy equally.
In view of some of the statements which are reaching us, one wonders whether the soldiers are determined to ignore the advice of the scientists until it is too late. The Report before us makes it clear that it is of paramount importance not to increase the scale of the tests. As I have said, it is emphasised throughout the Report that the scale of the tests determines the danger in the future. Yet what do we find from Tokio, in the Manchester Guardian of 11th July? It says:
Japanese scientists stated that the United States exploded this morning"—
that is, 11th July last week—
the biggest weapons of its present nuclear tests. They say that this is the eighth explosion of the series which began on 5th May although the United States has announced only two. It is believed to be the largest this year and larger than, and bigger than, the Russian tests last year. The only test comparable with it is the March explosion two years ago. The blast this time may have released more energy than that bomb.
The Manchester Guardian's scientific correspondent writes from Tokio:

The Japanese Report is almost certain to be accurate. In Japan there are at least a dozen recording stations which between them are able to fix the position of an explosion almost exactly.
I can only say that, if this is correct, then the report of the United States Federal Research Council has not been taken seriously.
Now there are indications that an increase in scale may not only mean that there may be bigger and more frequent explosions from bombs released by countries already in possession of these fearful weapons, for again on 11th July, only last week, the French Assembly approved a motion on Euratom which, among other proposals, refers to the full development of the French atomic effort. Although M. Mollet explained that between now and 1961 France, as a member of Euratom, would undertake no atomic explosions, during that time French atomic research would continue and at the end of it she would have full legal and military possibilities for making nuclear weapons and, of course, for testing them.
In the light of all that, it seems there can only be one answer: control of these tests with the object of eventual abolition must be our aim. There must be no delay. I ask the Minister to show a sense of urgency in this matter. To fail to do so is to fail in our duty not only to the House, but to the people of the world and to posterity.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I was a little uncertain, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) continued with her speech, whether the debate was directed, as it is ostensibly on the Order Paper, to the discussion of the Report of the Medical Research Council of Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations, or to very much wider matters of strategy and defence, even allowing for the fact that the two subjects certainly touch upon each other in places.
When we had a clear and objective account from the Medical Research Council before us, I had hoped that we might have drawn conclusions as the members of the Committee did, scientifically and objectively, instead of taking the occasion to make a demonstration of the sort better fitted to a debate on topics far wider than that


appearing on the Order Paper. I would merely say in reply to the right hon. Lady that the Government, like previous Governments, have strenuously striven to abolish the use of atomic weapons and fusion weapons at disarmament conferences.
In introducing the subject, the right hon. Lady stated the case about strontium 90 a little less objectively than the Report so carefully does. She drew the attention of the House to the Summary, which rightly says that no doubt there is a danger. In discussing what is a difficult scientific matter she failed to point out that the Committee also took the view, in referring to the amount of strontium 90 in fall-out today, that:
These figures should he viewed against the background of the fact that the top one foot of soil has always contained on the average about one curie per square mile of the equally, if not more dangerous naturally occurring radium.
In a later paragraph the Report says:
Such measurements as have been made of strontium 90 in human bone suggest that the highest levels are at present about a thousand times less than is considered permissible for those occupationally exposed.
One has to take those scientific facts into account in appreciating the very careful assessment which the Committee gave of the present danger and which is set out in the conclusions of the Report.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I think the hon. Member should also take note of and add that the Committee expressed particular concern about the radio-sensitivity of children's bones, particularly in young infants, and that the ratio is roughly about ten to one.

Mr. Fort: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I intended to refer to that later when I speak of the research work which we ought to be carrying out.
Despite what the right hon. Lady said, in the course of the last eighteen months there has been a step forward in getting this problem into proportion. When I saw on the Order Paper today that there was to be a debate on nuclear and allied radiations, I was struck by the fact that eighteen months ago when the Government set up the Committee whose Report we are now supposed to be discussing the Order had the more dramatic title "Nuclear Explosions and the Genetic Effects."
It is quite clear from the Report by the M.R.C. that the health hazards are less than was thought during that debate and that much heavier doses of radiation are needed to produce health hazards than was then thought and that the genetic effects of radiation are a good deal more complicated. It is obvious from the extraordinarily clear Summary in the Report that a great deal less is known than one would have thought when some of the generalisations were being made eighteen months ago.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Lady, having criticised us, emphasising the importance of the industrial uses of nuclear radiation. It is clear from the Report that natural radiation and industrial radiation as present are more likely to affect us and our children than the tests of nuclear weapons so far. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies we shall hear something of what the Government intend to do to tighten up present practices in industrial uses.
It is obvious from the Report and from the corresponding American report that an enormous amount of long-term research work, particularly on the genetic effects of radiation, has to be carried out. It will have to go on for the rest of the century, and a good deal longer.

Mr. Hale: Dropping bombs all the time?

Mr. Fort: Does the hon. Member wish to interrupt?

Mr. Hale: Yes. Is the hon. Member suggesting that we continue research work for a century dropping these bombs all the time to see what happens to three generations of the population?

Mr. Fort: I understand that the hon. Member is not interested in fundamental genetic research.

Mr. Hale: I am exceedingly interested in genetic research, and I hope to speak about it later. The hon. Member is saying that because we know nothing about this matter, we should go on for a hundred years until we do know something.

Mr. Fort: I still think that knowledge is better than ignorance. Perhaps the hon. Member will take up that issue when he speaks.
We want to see the work continuing. It will have to continue for an extremely


long time to give reliable results, and the scope of the work should be extended. One of the most significant of the conclusions in the Report is that the Committee recommended that work should proceed in new directions. Some of it, curiously enough, will not even cost large sums of money—such as an improvement in the collection of vital statistics on which much information is required if we are to understand what is happening and assess what the danger really is.
I hope that we shall not hear from my right hon. Friend a long discourse on high strategic matters which would be out of place in this debate, however well it would fit in with one on foreign affairs and the whole problem of defence and disarmament, rather than a discussion of what should primarily be a scientific subject.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) was of a kind which I do not recall in history since Nero gave himself a musical accompaniment to some observations while Rome was burning. We might well decide whether we should require the world to continue before accepting what the hon. Member suggested, that we should go on for 100 years. If we are to find that fish are being atomised, are we to appoint a Royal Commission or call on the trawler owners for restraint? That is not facing an issue of this magnitude with the important attention it deserves.
I agreed with every word of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), except for one sentence. I am glad that my right hon. Friend opened this debate and spoke from, her wide knowledge of the subject, but it is not the generals who are to blame in this matter. It is no good saying that the generals are to blame. In all history the generals have never been men of blood, because they see mass death and understand it. It is always the bishops and the politicians who plead for mass weapons and mass extermination—the politicians to protect their dignity and the bishops to protect their faith. So this has gone on through the centuries, and now we have to face this issue at its most serious.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe made an extraordinary comment on this Report, when he said that of course we do

not know much about the subject. That is quite true. Normally scientists are humble individuals. I had the opportunity of discussing the matter with one distinguished scientist who was a member of the Committee. All the scientists say is, "We do not know the facts." The Report is out-of-date. It is out-of-date on two heads. I have not had an opportunity of looking up the precise terms of the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on the damage which may occur from radio-atomised strontium being disseminated over the world.
The Committee based itself on the assumption that strontium-90 would fall evenly. In effect, the Committee said, "We do not know what is happening. We do know that this atom dust goes up to a height of about 40,000 feet and forms an envelope over the whole world, which is about evenly spread, and comes down normally under the influence of rain. We do not yet know why, we do not yet know how, but so far as we know it is coming down about evenly. Therefore, we propose to take that as the basis of our theory of what the effects will be." The Committee makes it quite clear in its Report that if the strontium did not fall evenly the effects might be serious—

Mr. Fort: I think that if the hon. Member turns to paragraph 224 of the Report he will find rather stronger evidence than he suggests for the assumption of the Committee.

Mr. Hale: I accept that there was very strong evidence at that time, and that is why the Committee made that assumption, but it has been completely falsified. I was about to observe that, and if the hon. Member had waited until the end of my sentence he would not then have permitted himself that statement. That is because Welsh sheep on the mountains are now showing signs of absorption of strontium far in excess of that expected at the time when the Report was written. It is all right talking about waiting 100 years, but much of the population of the world lives at heights far above the heights of the Welsh mountains—the whole of the population of Nairobi, for instance.
This is a serious matter. The scientists say, "We know this is a deleterious substance. We know that, in its radioactive form, it will be damaging to the bones, and especially to the bones of young


children. We do not believe it will produce any genetic effects. It merely destroys the life or the health of the one person it affects; it is not transmitted genetically." There is no question about the assertion that here is a highly poisonous substance now surrounding the world in an envelope maintained at a height by some power we know not what. It is really nonsense to say that we must make a whole series of assumptions, for the time being watch the results, and hope that we are right.
I remember that after the first series of atomic explosions people said that the weather had never been quite right since. It is true that people had been saying that long before there were atomic explosions and some of us did not take that very seriously, but the Government set up an expert meteorological committee to report on the question and, so far as I know, that committee has never reported. Some who have noticed what has happened today will feel that the weather has been unfair to us at Leeds—there has been an intervention somewhere.

Mr. Ede: Wait until tomorrow.

Mr. Hale: We really do not know about this matter. I had the privilege of meeting some atomic scientists from Japan a couple of years ago. They came over after some of the earlier explosions. They gave overwhelming and conclusive evidence that fish had become radioactive although they were caught 1,800 miles from the scene of the explosion. We have been asking ever since how that happened, and all the reply we can get is that something went wrong with the explosion. The whole history of this world may be some day that something went wrong with someone's calculations about a hydrogen bomb explosion. Fish became radioactive and were condemned in the markets of Japan, and fishermen who came in contact with them were affected, although they were several hundred miles away from the scene of the explosion. I think I am right in saying that some of them never recovered. A committee has not yet reported on that, and no one has told us how it came to pass.
We are told, "You must not count that one," rather in the terminology of the fishermen who said, "That was one that

got away." Anyone who was killed through that explosion was killed by accident, by some ineffective computation or an error on the drawing board. These are far too serious matters to be dealt with in that way. This question of strontium on the hills is obviously a grave matter. When the right hon. Gentleman replies, I am sure he will give us the precise figures. I do not want to misquote them, because I am not sure that I can recall them accurately. I think I am safe in saying that for far more than 12,000 to 14,000 miles from the explosion, at 2,000 or 3,000 feet above sea level—it cannot be more in this island—serious effects are manifesting themselves in animal life.
What about the genetic effects? No one wishes to be an alarmist. I agree that the Report on the whole is rather more assuring than one had hoped. One welcomes that, but the whole question of gene-mutation is a subject we do not know much about. Professor Haldane said several years ago that the spontaneous mutation of one spermatozoa in a testicle of the Duke of Kent in 1818 brought about the Russian Revolution and the fall of the Spanish dynasty because, as a result of that spontaneous mutation, Queen Victoria became a carrier of haemophilia which she passed on. That did not affect her own Royal Family—King Edward VII was not affected; indeed, we have recent evidence that his procreative faculties were efficient to a very late age—but it happened, and by a spontaneous mutation.
It is no use saying that these matters affect only one individual; they can soon affect the race. When we hear of births of two-headed children and so on, we know that this is not one of the branches of life in which it can be said that "two heads are better than one".
I asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question last week, which I should have thought was of some importance and some urgency. I asked him what had happened about the investigation of which we had been told into the genetic effects of the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were bombs which were then being estimated as having the equivalent effect of kilotons, a thousand tons of T.N.T., whereas we are now talking in terms of megatons, or a million tons of T.N.T. The bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and


Nagasaki would now be regarded as so small as to be thrown back into the sea as inadequate.
We have gone far beyond that, but what has happened about the investigation into the genetic effects? The right hon. Gentleman said the Committee did not have the opportunity of going into it because the information was not available. He said it is being published very shortly. He said that books would be issued and that before long we should know. Why do we not know? This is one of half-a-dozen countries in the world which is using this weapon, and the House of Commons in this country, discussing this important matter, has not this information. I hope I have not misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. If I have, I will give way to him, since I am speaking from recollection.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): The hon. Member's recollection is slightly at fault. I said just the opposite. I said that what has been made available to the House is what is available in this country. The second report of Dr. Neel and Dr. Schull has not yet been published, but it is important to note that the Medical Research Council was given a preview of certain parts of it, which are summarised in paragraphs 167 to 170 of the Council's Report. In fact, the Council considered this, and what was in the Report to which the hon. Member refers was summarised in the Report of the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, is completely wrong. The Medical Research Council's Report dealt with the leukaemia produced by the genetic results.

Mr. Fort: rose—

Mr. Hale: Would it be possible for me to utter one complete sentence, starting from the full stop to the last one and ending at the full stop to the next one? Then I will give way with the greatest pleasure. The Medical Research Council made it quite clear that it had considered the leukaemia results of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but had had no evidence upon other genetic results, some of which are manifesting themselves now.

Mr. Fort: If the hon. Gentleman will again turn to paragraph 168, in the chapter entitled. "The Genetic Effects of

Radiation", he will see that the Neel and Schull Report discusses the genetic effects. I think the hon. Gentleman's memory is rather at fault.

Mr. Hale: The Committee discusses it and says it has no information on some subjects. We have discussed it with members of the Committee since, and we do not know, the House does not know, and no one knows what are the figures—nor are those figures in the Report. If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt again, let him give me some figures on the genetic effects, excluding leukaemia, of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If he cannot give them, will he please shut up for the time being and let me conclude what was intended to be a short speech?
These are matters of great importance to the world. The whole question of the genetic effects is one of supreme importance. It has been the policy of the Labour Party for some time—and I am very glad that this is so—that we should offer to cease these experiments on an international agreement until we have had an opportunity of considering just what we are doing. What can be the objection to that? If we continue with them we may find that as a result of this wild use of a radioactive substance, which we know has the power of regenerating itself, we affect the stream of life and do something of very great magnitude.
Aldous Huxley put the problem on a lighter note in the Fifth Philosopher's Song, when he talked about—
A million million spermatozoa,
All of them alive.
Out of their cataclysm but one poor Noah
Dare hope to survive.
And among that billion minus one
Might have chanced to be
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne—
But the one was Me.
It was not me but Aldous Huxley, but those were the sentiments which he expressed.
This is a question of supreme importance and, as I understand it in the last day or two, the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made a concrete proposal that we should agree at once to a suspension of the experimental detonation of nuclear weapons.


What is the obstacle in the way to an agreement such as that? Is it the American elections? Is it Mr. Dulles?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Gentleman seems to be widening the debate beyond its proper scope.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood the subject was whether we should let these things off or not. Surely it must be the case that if we are assessing whether the effects are deleterious, that must necessarily include a discussion whether we should go on doing something which is damaging to the human race and damaging to mankind. At least I have made the point which I wanted to make, and I will not develop it because I have virtually come to a conclusion.
All I would say in conclusion on these matters is that the whole situation has altered. Secrecy no longer exists in the science of nuclear energy. There is no patent in nuclear weapons and no private knowledge. The whole of this knowledge is now part of the scientific heritage of mankind, and it might have been better for the peace of the world if it had always been so. All we talk about now, in terms of the use of these weapons for offensive, or, as we always call it, defensive purposes, is who can build the aeroplane which can deliver a bomb faster than anyone else. We are now talking in terms not of the size of the weapon or of mass destruction but of the few minutes of speed in the explosion of the weapon.
I therefore venture to say what I have said in the House before—that if there were a sane and sensible Government in this country, not only would they throw open the Foreign Office, but they would offer for sale any document in it at half a crown a time—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hale: —and they would say that we have given up secret diplomacy; they would invite the Russians and the Americans and the French and the Africans to inspect our atom bomb plants and, having done that, would blow the darn things up.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I think that no one in the House would deny that this is an extremely important subject, about which too little is known. Most hon. Members would, I think, also agree that Russia has recently revealed the importance which she attaches to the explosions of these atomic and nuclear weapons. At a recent meeting in Moscow, in very convivial circumstances, one of the Russian leaders said of France, "France is a small nation; she is of no interest; she has no atomic weapons."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be widening the scope of the debate beyond the Report of the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I was tempted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to go slightly outside the bounds of discretion.

Mr. F. Beswick: On a point of order. You will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when we discussed the business for the week, last Thursday, it was specifically stated by the Prime Minister that the intention was that this debate could range widely over the question of the control of the tests as well as the Report to which you referred.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To range over the control of the tests seems beyond the scope of the debate. This is not a defence debate.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: This is important. The Report refers to a considerable extent to these tests. Surely we are to that degree entitled to raise the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The importance of the tests as related to the subject matter of the Report may be discussed, but I do not think that their use for the purposes of a defence debate is in order.

Mr. Beswick: So that we may understand how widely the debate can range, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask whether you are ruling that although it is possible to draw a conclusion from the Report and from the debate that the hazards to men are such that these tests should be


stopped, we cannot consider whether or in what way we can secure an end to these tests?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The effect of the tests can he discussed—the medical effects and the effects on the human race, or whatever it may be—but the control of the tests, which is the subject of a defence debate, is not in order in this debate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Bowing to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I turn to Table 4, in page 59 of the Report, which seems to me to be extremely significant. There, it is pointed out that if the natural background of radioactivity which we all receive in our life-time is taken as being 100 units, the largest proportion comes from diagnostic radiology—as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) pointed out—and that is only 22 units. After that, there is no contribution bigger than 1·6, and the contribution from the fall-out from the test explosions which had taken place up to the time of the publication of the Report was only one unit; that is to say, 1 per cent. of the radiation which we receive from natural causes.
From that I am not going to argue that there is no danger, but I think that it is right to put this into proper perspective and not to get unduly alarmed long before the new sources of radiation are large enough to effect the future of this country, or the future health of our citizens or of anyone else. It has been rightly pointed out by Sir John Cockroft that people in high latitudes and those living at heights receive far greater amounts than the natural radiation which, for this purpose, is taken as 100.
It has been found that in Lapland, as as example of a population living in a high latitude, and in Tibet, as an example of a population living at great height, the people's health is in no way affected, although they receive double the normal dose. In fact, if I may follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, their rate of reproduction and natural health is very high indeed. I do not know, therefore, that we need necessarily gauge the increase in radiation that will have a detrimental genetic or any other detrimental effect on the nation.

Mr. Hale: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is perfectly right, but there

is no evidence that strontium does produce a genetic effect. Its effect is on the bone structure. It produces something in he nature of osteomyelitis.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interjection, with which I do not disagree.
I would also like to add my support to the plea which has been made from this side of the House that perhaps we should look at these industrial processes. For the first time, there is being brought to light the amount of radiation to which people are exposed in normal occupations, such as using X-rays for shoe fittings and luminous paint for watches—quite normal occurrences which we have all for many years taken for granted, but which may be causing a hazard.
I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able to tell us that he is to appoint a committee to look into the industrial and industrial health aspects of these problems. Perhaps he could also tell us that, in view of the importance of this subject, he is to keep in existence a committee which will make sure that exact measurements are kept of all sources and types of radiation, so that from time to time the House may be informed, and can watch for any danger and stop it long before it reaches unsafe proportions.

7.54 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) quoted, quite rightly, from the Table in the Report where it is made quite clear that, so far as we can tell, in this country about 1 per cent. of the background radiation which we normally receive in a lifetime comes from fall-out, and that, if more explosions of large hydrogen bombs do not occur, the danger from that fall-out would not appear to be very great. I think that he will agree with me, however, that the assumption there is that in this country we spend about two and a half hours a day out of doors. That is the assumption in the Report, and, naturally, another is that we live in the houses which, compared with houses in some parts of the world, are fairly substantial. In other parts of the world people spend most of the time out of doors and their homes are not substantially built.
Therefore, if we are considering, not what is happening to us alone, but what is happening globally—for the human race


is one family, its members meet each other and intermarry—I think it is fair to say that the British Medical Journal is perhaps correct in its editorial this week when it says that the figure for the world is probably larger, and probably reaches not 1 per cent. but up to 4 per cent.; in other words, nearly as much as is said to be the total of external radiation other than that which we receive as our own natural background, such as the luminising of watches and the use of these foolish X-ray machines to which children are exposed to see whether their shoes fit, and so on.
In Chapter VIII, pages 80 and 81, the Committee's conclusions are set out. Among them is one that frightens me. It is 2 (c), which says:
An individual should not be allowed to accumulate more than 50 r of radiation to the gonads, in addition to that received from the natural background, from conception to the age of 30 years; and this allowance should not apply to more than one-fiftieth of the total population of this country.
The Minister will contradict me if I am wrong, I am sure, but I should have thought that a dose of 50 roentgens throughout the lifetime, which is nearly 20 times the amount which we get from our own natural background—which is, 3 roentgens—would probably bring about a doubling of the mutation rate. That is the very thing which we are warned against, yet here, in this very cautious and thoughtful Report, we are advised that a million of our population in this country may be allowed to be subjected to a dosage of 50 roentgen, with the chance of a doubling of the mutation rate.
On the very day of the publication of this Report the Americans produced another report, that of the National Academy of Science on the biological effects of radiation. That Report was published on the same day last week. There it is very clearly put that in handling this type of material in any way whatsoever we are playing with fire. The words used in that Report are:
To the best of our present knowledge, if we increase radiation by x per cent. then the gene mutations caused by radiation will also be increased by x per cent.
Later on it says:
The concept of a safe rate of radiation simply does not make sense if one is concerned with genetic damage to future generations.

I am sure that that is true, especially as nearly all mutations, as far as we know, are not good for the human race. They are bad, and they cannot be got rid of except over a very long time and with great pain to the human race—with great suffering. There has to be a rejection of those who inherit to their own detriment a mutation that makes them unfit to compete, and slowly, remorselessly and surely the pressure and the tendency is that they have to be eliminated by natural selection.
It is interesting to note that in the field of human genetics one vast experiment has continued for over 200 years; an experiment which we can most accurately assess. It relates to a kind of anæmia to which many Africans are subject, and have been for many hundreds of years. It is called sickle cell anæmia, in which the blood is spoiled as a result of people living in malaria-infested areas; or rather, it is an adaptation amongst those people, by a spoiling of the blood, to malarial infestation. Instead of the red cells being healthy, round, and full of hæmoglobin, they become crescentshaped and thin and poor in quality and the malaria parasite is not interested in them.
Thus the people survive, or tend to survive, in spite of the very high death rate there is in infancy and in young manhood and womanhood. But they can in Africa survive better than healthy people, for these die from blackwater fever. That is quite clear. About 200 years ago negroes began to be exported from Africa to other parts of the world, but in particular to the Southern States of North America. There was no malaria there. It is quite easy for us to estimate what has happened to them. Whereas, when they left Africa—and in those areas the conditions are the same today as when they left—the incidence of this kind of anæmia was roughly 60 per cent., in their pure-bred descendants in the Southern States of North America it has dropped to about 16 per cent.
This is the most reassuring state of affairs that I have ever come across. It shows that when the environment is bad, the people who survive are not the fittest, but often the least fit; that when the environment is improved, and is made normal, those who are unfit do not survive and it is the normally fit person who


survives. The better the environment, the sooner will mankind emerge towards the goal for which we all hope—in other words, the kind of physical perfection we hope for ultimately for us all.
I should like to say a word on the question of the 22 per cent. of added load as a result of medical radiology. This is a serious matter at first sight, but it is not very serious when one realises that it is mostly due to X-ray investigation of the pelvis. One is not so nervous about having a chest X-ray when the apparatus is properly screened and guarded. It would not matter about having one's wrist X-rayed if one had fractured it. But we have to be most careful not to subject young people—young women and young men; and by "young" I mean until they are forty-five years or so—to pelvic X-rays unless we can avoid it. That is what it really means.
Of course, the Minister will review the whole situation, bearing in mind that this information which we have just been given is based upon the findings from a very good hospital, and that the real facts are probably much worse than have been given to us. At the same time, I hope that it will not go out from this House that people need be afraid of mass X-ray, because one must balance the two factors together. 0·1 of 1 roentgen for a chest X-ray is a very different matter from the massive dosages that one receives in the gonads from a pelvic X-ray—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on the subject, could he say whether it means that with the development of higher speed X-ray and, therefore, the creation of stronger gamma rays, there is an increasing danger from X-ray, or is the modern X-ray less troublesome than the old and softer type?

Dr. Stross: I think I am right in saying that it depends on which part of the body one is X-rayed. It is only the gonads which are interested in this.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does it not also depend on the kilovolts which are applied?

Dr. Stross: No, except that with modern X-ray machinery better shielding is necessary. The rays bounce off from walls, etc., and there has got to be the greater care with the modern type of X-ray machinery.
It should not go out from this House that people need be nervous about X-rays of any parts of the body, except the one instance which I have mentioned. Of course, we are very happy to find the grave warning about giving X-ray treatment in excessive doses for cases other than cancer. The spondylitis cases which were referred to earlier are a case in point.
Certain conclusions must be considered if we are to protect the population. We recruit young women, in the main, to become radiographers. If we accept the logical conclusion from the advice given in the Report, I think we should consider recruiting from the age of 40 onwards rather than from the age of 18 to 40. We must bear in mind that it is the sum total of the dose to the nation as a whole, and outside the nation to Europe, and outside Europe to the world as a whole, that counts. We have to remember that the use of X-ray for diagnosis is highly evolved only in some countries, and not in most parts of the world. But it is going to spread to those parts of the world, and even with the greatest care, some further added load will appear as compared with what we are facing today.
All in all, therefore, although this Report appears to be reassuring, one can read between the lines and find that there is very grave disquiet shown in it. For example—and I will resume my seat leaving the House with this thought—these very knowledgeable and intelligent people have gone out of their way to tell us that we should be careful about having luminous watches. They go out of their way to give us a paragraph about those little X-ray machines which are used for shoe-fitting. Can we imagine, if we had given them different terms of reference, what they would be saying to us about the danger of an expansion of tests, and in particular, if we become so lunatic that we involve ourselves in world war?

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has spoken about this Report and some of its conclusions, and I should like to refer to one of his criticisms. Before I do so, however, I am sure the House will congratulate the writers of this Report because it is the first time that this very important subject has been brought


into perspective. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that despite a certain amount of scpeticism he has shown that it was prepared with the greatest care and the conclusions were arrived at with caution. One of the points which he made requires some explanation, and I expect my right hon. Friend will be willing to deal with it at the close of the debate.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who is well versed in this matter professionally, mentioned something which interested me very much. One of the conclusions of the Report in paragraph 362, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, referred to the recommendation that
An individual should not be allowed to accumulate more than 50 r of radiation to the gonads, in addition to that received from the natural background, from conception to the age of 30 years.
That seemed to me to be an important conclusion. The hon. Gentleman feared that that was unsafe because it might increase the mutation rate if such dosage were received. The conclusions—very tentative ones—on other pages of the Report point to a possible dosage of from 30 to 80 roentgens as being the possible dosage to double the mutation rate.
It is not clear from the Report—and this is a technical matter on which I am not clear—as to whether that refers to an immediate dosage such as might occur in certain accidents or on certain occasions where a person was exposed to a severe nuclear explosion, or to the possibility of cumulative radiation in the body increasing the mutation rate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten me.

Dr. Stross: It cannot possibly matter which way it is, because it does not matter whether it is over a long period or by a sudden accident, as the hon. Member suggested. The important thing is that the Report uses the words "thirty years", meaning that it is for young men. It would not matter if one was fifty years of age if one had the full dosage, because between fifty and sixty years of age it has no significance genetically.

Mr. Neave: I am sure my right hon. Friend will deal with that point, because I think it does require some explanation

to those who are not well versed in this matter. Of course, where the Report says:
in addition to the natural background,
that dosage is comparatively insignificant.
What the hon. Gentleman must be referring to, and what is important, is what I wish to talk about tonight—the occupational hazards of radiation in industry. What the paragraph must be referring to is the possibility that workers in industry using radiation may receive this considerable dose over a period of years up to the age of 30, and, therefore, it is of the greatest importance to industry that it should understand that position clearly. So I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with it.
I want to say something about the occupational aspect of this matter and the use by industry of radioactive materials which, with the advent of nuclear power, is bound to increase over the years. Indeed, the firm in which I have an interest has been using radioactive materials for some time past. Even before the war, this firm was using X-rays for various purposes and is now using radioactive isotopes. It is, therefore, very important that we should consider these aspects of the matter.
I particularly wish to draw attention to paragraph 275 of the Report, which refers to the occupational hazards in industry, and to refer to some words in part of that paragraph:
… it is difficult to avoid the impression that industrial personnel are, in general, less aware of the hazards of radiation than those engaged in the fields of medicine and atomic energy".
In view of the increases in the application and use of radioactive materials by industry, the matter has now to be considered very seriously. It seems to me particularly important, for instance, in the case of those employed in a firm which is using radiography for various purposes, such as taking pictures of castings, and welds and suchlike uses of radioactive materials.
At present, the Radiological Protection Service, which works under the Ministry of Health, is giving considerable assistance to industrial firms, but it is doing so in a fairly general way, in the sense that it does not carry out any inspection. Among the things that are done to assist them is, for example, the reading of films which are worn by the employees over a


fortnightly period. These films worn by those handling radioactive materials are sent to the Radiological Protection Service, and I have had some complaints about delay in returning these films.
This is a very important matter, because if anything is wrong in the dosage, and it is too high, one ought to know immediately whether the employee concerned should be put off that work or should receive treatment. The speedy return of these films should be encouraged. It would help the big firms, which also have the necessary organisation, to take blood counts and make use of dosometers. But I question the position of the small firms, which cannot do so much in this field. How are they to be helped?
The object of industry must clearly be, as this Report so well points out, to achieve the same standard as Harwell has done in safety in the handling of radioactive substances. Accidents are still very rare indeed and will remain so if we continue the very high standard of precautions now being taken by the Atomic Energy Authority, and apply them to industry.

Dr. Stross: We heard today from the Minister of Health that regulations are to be published very soon. That should help, should it not?

Mr. Neave: I must apologise to the House, because I have only just come in and I did not hear that the regulations are to be published so very soon. Of course, the use of these regulations will be eminently valuable, but education will be just as important as are regulations in this respect. I should like to know the Government's policy with regard to the education of firms in the taking of various precautions against the possibility of contamination by employees not actually engaged in the use of radioactive materials.
I think that there is also a great need, and my right hon. Friend will probably agree, for training radiographers, and I see that various technical colleges are taking up this matter of the training of radiographers. It is important, since the facilities for private firms to send their personnel for that training are not really good enough at present.
There is obviously a big field in which the Government can assist industry in this matter, and, now that these regulations

are to be published, they will to a certain extent tell people where they stand. Despite the Radiological Protection Service and the factory inspectors. I suggest that there is a much wider field for the instruction of industry as to the part it should play in seeking to achieve the standards of safety which have been so successfully worked out at Harwell.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think we must be grateful, first of all, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) for the way in which she introduced this debate, though I must say I was a little surprised at some of the criticisms which her speech attracted from the other side of the House. It was said that she had raised the matter in a spirit that was not suitable for this debate, but I cannot say that I agree with that criticism, because I think the questions which my right hon. Friend put to the Minister of Health were perfectly justified in view of the seriousness of the subject we are discussing. I think, too, that the contribution which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) is an extremely valuable one.
It is true that the application and the use of radioactive materials in industry is growing very rapidly indeed, and while it may possibly be true that the actual volume of danger at this moment may be relatively small, in view of its probably rapid growth in the next few years, it is very important indeed that there should be the fullest examination of the methods adopted by industry, not only through regulations about to be published, but that there should be proper inspection and examination of the procedures adopted.
The first point which I want to make has been discussed already. It concerns the adequacy or otherwise of the research going forward today. On that point, I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that our link-up with international investigation is adequate. I well know that some of our very eminent physicists and others are engaged in international research work, and this is a subject which is pre-eminently and inevitably international in the effect of much that happens, because it is not a question of what we may do in this country alone, but a question of what happens elsewhere.


Here, above all, is an opportunity for the sharing of knowledge, which, as indeed the Geneva Conference showed, the nations by and large are very willing to do. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we should encourage most vigorously all the international research work which is going forward in this field and play the fullest part in it.
There is a reference in the Report to the fact that the International Commission on Radiological Protection is working in close liaison with the World Health Organisation, and we want to be satisfied that both these bodies have adequate resources to carry out their work, because there is no doubt at all of their importance to us.
There has been some argument as to how far it is right for us to discuss the problem of bomb tests. They cannot be left out altogether; they are a factor in this problem in the addition they make to radiation dangers in the world. There is a natural basis, and the very fact and continuance of that natural basis makes it, of course, all the more urgent that we should do nothing to raise the level that can be avoided.
It seems to me that we may be inclined to be a little too easy in our attitude towards the present situation, forgetting that the present level of bomb tests might very well increase. There are many smaller countries which may be coming forward with their own investigations, and there is no reason why other countries in the world should, as it were, be denied their right to their own tests any more than this country. If we take the view that this country must carry out its own tests on weapons we develop, then, of course, the same liberty must presumably be available to other countries—very many of them—which have not so far got to a very advanced stage in their work. There may, therefore, be a considerable intensification of this danger unless vigorous action is taken, even at some possible cost to our own knowledge of the worth of weapons we ourselves are preparing.
We have heard from my honourable and very medical Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) almost as much as we need to know on the subject of the dangers of radiation from diagnostic radiology. We can only

emphasise that there is here a very real danger. As the Report itself says, there is a need for a full review of present practice, and possibly an even greater need in the United States where, very properly, much more concern is felt about this problem because of the infinitely greater use made there of radiological methods, very often possibly of relatively little value. It is very important for us to have such a review carried out promptly so that everyone should know what the position is. No doubt, the advice given in this Report about the particular dangers affecting people over a period of some thirty years, the most important years of life, will be borne particularly in mind by the Government.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has already issued some advice to hospitals and others concerned in the health services on the subject of the protection of workers. Again, I would ask what action he is taking to follow up the advice he has given. It is well known, I think, that some hospitals may take very much more effective precautions than others. I am not sure whether it is sufficient merely to leave it to this, no doubt very admirable, advice he has issued, or whether some further action should be taken to examine the situation in hospitals where radioactive materials are being regularly used, to make sure that the precautions adopted are adequate.
As has been mentioned, the protection of workers generally is of very real and growing importance. No one, I believe, has the slightest doubt about the satisfactory nature of the precautions taken at our atomic energy plants; all reports seem to suggest that, very properly, there is a very high standard being set and maintained there. One has some anxiety about the position in industry generally, and possibly about the attitude of those who actually use the materials and their relative lack of knowledge of the dangers which may flow from such use.
I have asked questions on this matter in the House, as to how soon the Regulations are to be published. I am glad to hear that they are coming soon. Other countries have already issued them in advance of us. This is a sort of case where sometimes one feels that by waiting more accuracy can be obtained, yet one


cannot delay indefinitely in providing people with what knowledge is currently available. I hope that the Minister, or possibly his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, will not only issue these Regulations with regard to protection against radiation in industry generally, but will follow the matter up. I hope that the Minister of Health, or his right hon. Friend, will make quite sure that these regulations are being adhered to.
It is very valuable, I think, that we should be having what might be called this preliminary debate on the subject at the moment, because, although it may be true that there is no reason why our anxieties should run away with us or blind us to the enormous and valuable possibilities, medical and otherwise of these developments, it is right that we should at any rate insist that we do nothing which would in any way prejudice the chances and health of generations to come.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Donald Johnson: No one can fail to be impressed by the accuracy and thoroughness of the Report which we are debating tonight. We all agree that warfare waged with thermo-nuclear weapons is a very terrible form of warfare. We all want these things to cease, and our future to be assured through international agreement. Nevertheless, we have, surely, by this time learned the perils of unilateral disarmament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have already drawn attention to the fact that that is outside the scope of this debate. The subject matter of this debate is the Report and the effects on health of nuclear and allied radiations.

Dr. Johnson: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I was coming to that. What I have said was merely by way of introductory phrases, if I may say so.
When I saw a Motion on the Order Paper on this subject, I did venture, off my own bat, to table an Amendment with a view to restoring what I felt was a sense of perspective in this matter. That is what I am proposing to do in the speech which I am now about to make, in which I propose to speak quite strictly to the health effects of these radiations.
From the table in page 59 of the Report, which puts a natural background at 100,

we find, rather to the surprise of many of us, that diagnostic radiology is the next thing on the list with a figure of 22, whereas the fall-out from test explosions is not a figure of one, as has been said by a previous speaker, but is, in fact, less than one. The Report states that if the present rate of firing continues for 100 years, the individual and genetic effects of any dose that may be received from external radiation would be insignificant. The Report dismisses in those quite definite and strong words the danger of harmful effects to health from test explosions.
In dealing with radiation, therefore, and the question of genetic effects, the matter which we have principally to consider is the question of diagnostic radiology. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) used some rather weighty words on this subject. He said that there is virtually no danger from X-ray of the chest and, quite correctly, that the real danger is from X-rays to the pelvis.
X-rays to the pelvis, as anybody familiar with maternity and ante-natal work knows, are an essential part of antenatal work. They are the most valuable form of diagnosis today in any ante-natal examination. In fact, certain obstetricians go so far as to say that every pregnant woman should be diagnosed by X-ray. That tends at first glance to be in conflict with what we read in the Report and with what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central. I press my right hon. Friend to look into this urgent matter and to have further expert inquiries and observations made and to give a ruling and guidance on this important subject.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) dealt somewhat extensively in his rather powerful fashion with the question of the dangers to health from strontium 90, which circulates in the atmosphere as a result of test explosions. One rather felt, perhaps wrongly, that having been somewhat let down by the words which I have quoted concerning the genetic effects of radiation, the hon. Member then turned to strontium 90 and created something of a bogey of it. I wish, therefore, to try to get this question of strontium 90 in perspective, even if in doing so I have to quote a rather long passage from the Report.
Paragraph 233 of the Report states:
By December, 1955, this concentration"—
that is, of strontium—
amounted to 0·011 curie of strontium 90. … The continuing fall-out from explosions which have already taken place will cause a rise, to a maximum by about 1965, of around 0·045 curie of strontium 90 per square mile. These figures should be viewed against the background of the fact that the top one foot of soil has always contained on the average about one curie per square mile of the equally, if not more, dangerous naturally occurring radium.
A simple arithmetical calculation shows that this amount of strontium 90, around which this bogey is being created, is rather less than one two-hundredth of the amount of radium—which is virtually interchangeable material from the viewpoint of danger to health—which is naturally occurring in the soil.
That, I submit, is the perspective in which we should treat this matter at present. The lessons this Report has to teach us are, first, that we have to look at the principal dangers from radiation nearer home in our peace-time affairs, and diagnostic radiology and the luminising industries—making, for instance, illuminated watch cases; and, secondly, that we must work for a reduction of the thermo-nuclear tests by international agreement without creating alarm about the present position.

8.36 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) will confirm every suspicion which has been growing on this side of the House about the political use to which the Government will be putting this Report, and that is to create the impression that there is no urgency whatsoever about the suspension of test explosions of hydrogen weapons. That note of complacency was sounded from the other side of the House from the beginning of the debate when the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) spoke as though he had never heard of the reason why this Report was produced.
The hon. Member had what I can describe only as the impertinence to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) for her very moderate and moving reference to the responsibility which lies upon us to see that the dangers of radioactivity are

not increased through political actions arising from the test explosions. He seemed to suggest—indeed, this has been inferred more than once in the debate—that hydrogen bomb tests are irrelevant to this debate, but I would point out to the House what the Report itself states:
The immediate occasion for the Government's request to the Medical Research Council to set up this Committee was the widespread public concern about the long-term effects of nuclear weapon testing.
I should have thought it very fitting if there had been present in the House tonight a Minister from the Foreign Office. I know that Mr. Deputy-Speaker is straining at the leash to find me out of order, but I want to say in all seriousness that, bearing in mind the purpose for which that Committee was set up by the Medical Research Council, we should have heard from the Government what was their conclusion about the urgency of the suspension of hydrogen bomb tests, as a result of the publication of this Report.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already ruled on this matter. I am not going back to that Ruling. I made it quite clearly.

Mrs. Castle: You have not ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is out of order to discuss, in the light of what the Report says, the political consequences of hydrogen bomb tests.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady knows quite well what I have ruled. I have ruled that it is in order to discuss the medical aspects of the tests, but that it is not in order to discuss the question of political control on this occasion.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you have read the Report yourself? Or have you a copy of it in front of you? If you will look at the Report you will see that there is a paragraph in it dealing with peace-time nuclear radiations resulting from bomb explosions, and, of course, war-time nuclear radiations. So anything which my hon. Friends say relating to nuclear radiations from bomb explosions, whether they are test explosions in peace-time, or explosions in war-time, is, I respectfully submit, quite in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Lady herself referred to them and was in order. The health side, the scientific side, of the tests it is in order to discuss, but


the question of political control appears to me to be a matter for a debate on defence, and not a matter for this debate.

Mrs. Castle: I am quite prepared for the House to judge, when it reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, whether I have said a word tonight that differs from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington said about hydrogen bomb tests. I ask for the opportunity to develop my speech on the medical evidence as to the consequences of hydrogen bomb tests which is contained in the Medical Research Council's Report.
We have a right to know from the Government tonight what importance they attach to the medical contents of the Report on the consequences of hydrogen bomb tests and the urgency or otherwise of suspending them. I say that quite deliberately because we have had speech after speech from the other side of the House saying that the hydrogen bomb tests do not matter and that what matters is X-rays in shoe shops and luminous watches and all the things over which we have no control.
I repeat that on the evidence in this Report the House has a right to have from the Government a statement of their appreciation of the urgency of doing something soon about hydrogen bomb tests. The Report states, in page 79:
The genetic effects to be expected from present or future radioactive fall-out from bombs fired at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds are insignificant.
All that hon. Members opposite have done is to seize on the word "insignificant". They have totally brushed aside the governing words, scientifically and medically,
… at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds. …
I would remind hon. Members opposite who have spoken with such complacency about the tests that the Report goes on to say:
They might not be so"—
that is not so insignificant—
if present rates of firing were increased and particularly if a greater number of thermonuclear weapons were tested.
I think that I am in order in saying that on the medical evidence of this Report—and we asked the Committee to produce it and to tell us whether or not the situation was urgent in relation to hydrogen bomb

tests—the answer is that if the rate is increased or the kinds differ we are facing immeasurable and unknown consequences.
My whole case is that the tests are increasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, quite rightly, and without interruption from the Chair, pointed out that as recently as 11th July the Manchester Guardian reported an alarming increase in thermo-nuclear explosions. This is going on all the time. We are, therefore, faced with the fact that the conditions which the Report describes as dangerous are in the process of being visited upon us. Something else has happened in the last few days—

Mr. Airey Neave: May I ask the hon. Lady to refer to paragraph 230, in page 57 of the Medical Research Council's Report, which refers to what would happen if the firing of both types of bomb were to continue indefinitely at the same rate as over the past two years? That, the Report says, would give the average individual
a dose over a period of 30 years of about 0·026r or about 0·9 per cent. of what he would receive in the same period from natural sources.
Would the hon. Member comment on that as being really not a very significant dose?

Mrs. Castle: The rate of firing and explosion is increasing all the time. The Americans, instead of having two test explosions, have had eight in a period of days. Is not that a matter of alarm to to the House and the responsibility of the House?
I know that we are not responsible for what the American Government let loose in radiactivity in the world, except in so far as we are part and parcel of a Disarmament Sub-Commission which is meeting at present to discuss these things. I, therefore, think that the rate of firing which is referred to in the Medical Research Council's Report is already out-of-date and that it is wrong to have this note of complacency tonight.
This Report has been called in aid in the last few days by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in the Disarmament Sub-Commission, as proving that there is no need for urgency in this matter. On Thursday of last week, in the Disarmament Sub-Commission, the Indian


representative asked to be heard on the need to agree at once on the suspension of hydrogen bomb tests. It was ruled that he should be heard. He produced medical evidence of the concern of some of what we call the uncommitted nations of the world about the consequences to the health of the world of the tests that are now going on.
I do not claim to be a scientific expert, and I should be bogged down in roentgens and curies if I were to pretend to be anything but a layman, but it seems to me to be clear, after reading this Report, that so far as strontium is concerned there is greater danger for those areas where the human being as well as the animal lives to a greater extent off the leaves of plants and off the products of the earth and in the open. In other words, the great peasant nations of the world are, I should have thought—and I think that my right hon. Friend will agree with me—in greater danger of the assimilation of this dreadful, insidious corrupter of the human bone. I refer the House to the bottom of page 57 of the Report for my evidence in that respect.
That is why I think that it is from these nations that there will come a passionate appeal to the great industrial nations to stop this menace to the health of the world. That is why the Indian delegate was heard at the Disarmament Sub-Commission last Thursday.
The following day, the United States of America gave her reply. Mr. Wadsworth said this:
Properly conducted tests do not constitute a hazard to human life and safety.
What do we mean by properly constituted tests? Where is the medical evidence for that? Are we to have a report telling us just what are properly conducted tests? I ask tonight whether it is the policy and belief of Her Majesty's Government that there is no danger to the health of the world from the continuance of tests.
I was horrified to find that the British delegate at the Disarmament Sub-Commission endorsed the American attitude. When Mr. Wadsworth, of the United States, spoke only last Friday and said, "There is no danger; we can go on ignoring the Indian people," he was backed by the British delegate, and I say

that we on this side of the House would not endorse that complacency of attitude. We were also told by the American delegate that there could be no suspension of tests until there was international agreement under proper safeguards to eliminate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In so far as these tests affect health, that is in order, but when the hon. Lady goes on to political control she is stepping beyond the bounds of the debate.

Mrs. Castle: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that from my reading of the Report I am in order. We cannot assess the medical consequences except in relation to the number of tests and the rate of firing. That is a medical factor.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I appreciate that, and that argument is in order. What I am objecting to is stepping out into the sphere either of foreign affairs or of defence.

Mrs. Castle: What I am asking, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is this. How many tests do the Government consider to be safe in the light of the medical evidence of this Report—how many a year? And what size of bomb? That is the medical question which I am asking. I am doing so because the British delegate, last Friday, associated himself with the American delegate's statement that there should be no suspension of tests until there had been an absolutely watertight international agreement eliminating nuclear weapons altogether. That, as things stand today, is in the "Never Never Land." Yet that is what our delegate voted for in our name.
What is the medical evidence on which that sort of policy is based? Where, in this Report, are we told that this sort of development is medically safe? I deplore the way in which the Government have taken a very cautious assessment by scientists who were not doing a political job and many of whose statements have been contradicted by other scientific and medical authorities who take a more urgent point of view.
The Report has been quoted in the House, in the Disarmament Sub-Commission and all over the place as proof that we can go on making these tests on an increasing scale without any check. Their suspension is made conditional on quite


impossible disarmament objectives. It is because of this dangerous development in the last few years that I deplore the fact that there is no Foreign Office spokesman here tonight to tell us what the policy of the Government is on the matter of hydrogen bomb tests.

8.51 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): The Manchester Guardian this morning was a little apprehensive about how the House of Commons would face up to a debate on this Report. Having listened to this surprisingly short debate, I must say that I think that the newspaper need have had no apprehension at all. The high level of speeches on both sides of the House has been very remarkable on what is a very technical problem. I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I am terrified of getting bogged down in roentgens, and I shall try, as far as I can, to avoid that misfortune.
I think that the first duty which the House would wish me to perform is to express the thanks of Her Majesty's Government and, I think I can say, of everybody in this House, to the Committee which produced this Report. The doctors and scientists selected by the Medical Research Council to serve on the Committee were the most distinguished men in this country, and, I believe, in the world, with knowledge of these technical and vital problems. I believe that the whole country owes a great debt to the Committee, not only for its careful examination of these problems, but also for the clear and concise way in which it expressed its conclusions on problems which, though abstruse, vitally affect the future of each one of us.
If I might summarise my general conclusion on the Report before I come to the debate, it is this. This is no new problem. Natural radiation and its properties have been known for very many years, but to this we have added man-made radiation. Both good and ill effects are derived from irradiation, and when as Minister of Health I visit wards in hospitals, I am very conscious of some of the benefits which flow from these discoveries.
The findings of the Report are reassuring. They do not reveal any present danger from the peace-time uses of radiation. We are entering a new age—I was

surprised that more was not made of that point in the debate—in which it is possible that nuclear energy may become the principal source of power. It is therefore very necessary for us to have a thorough understanding of the extent of the dangers that may accompany our scientific progress, in particular the possible harmful genetic effects on the population.
Clearly, we should try to work out the safety limits, and, at a time when the amount of radiation from the new sources of power is likely to increase, we must avoid any extra radiation which is not absolutely necessary. It is to this task that the Committee addressed itself.
The Committee recognised the wide range of permissible scientific opinion. It stated in paragraph 5 of its Report:
… we feel reasonably confident that the general picture that we have drawn is unlikely to be found grossly inaccurate in perspective or scope.
While the Committee was examining these problems, an investigation was being carried out in America into the biological effects of atomic radiation. It is a remarkable fact that, working independently, both investigations have reached broadly similar conclusions.
One of the advantages of this Report is that, having devoted the first six chapters to a technical discussion of the issues involved, it provides a summary and then, in Chapter VIII, concisely sets out its conclusions.
I believe that my best way of replying to the debate is to deal with the points raised and the questions asked and to explain the action which Her Majesty's Government intend to take on the Report in the order of the conclusions given in Chapter VIII, referring where necessary to the earlier passages of the Report.
The first conclusion is what I emphasised, that at the present time any addition to radiation should require careful justification before it is permitted. This points to the danger.
We are, as we believe, entering a nuclear age which is going to be for the advantage of mankind. Those who are helping us to usher it in are included in the second conclusion. It deals with those who are by occupation exposed to an additional risk compared with the rest of the community. It points out that the dose should not exceed 0·3 roentgen weekly averaged over any period of 13 consecutive weeks; that should be the


maximum permissible dose. During a whole lifetime, no person engaged should be allowed to accumulate more than 200 roentgen of "whole-body" radiation. Also, in order to provide against the genetic effects, no individual should be allowed to accumulate more than 50 roentgen of radiation to the gonads up to the age of 30 years. There follows the proviso that this allowance should not apply to more than one-fiftieth of the total population of this country.
The point that I want to make is that the Atomic Energy Authority will have no difficulty in carrying out these recommendations. They will be carried out. It may mean a certain amount of shift re-arrangement, but there will be no difficulty in fulfilling the recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) seemed to find a conflict between conclusion 2 (c) and conclusion 3. There is no conflict. Conclusion 2 deals with those undergoing an occupational risk, a very small proportion of the whole population—the employees of the Atomic Energy Authority number 7,000—while conclusion 3, with which I will deal in a minute, refers to the permissible dose for the whole population. There is nothing inconsistent in that, and it must be remembered—some hon. Members forgot it—that conclusion 2 (c) deals only with those who have an occupation risk, at the moment a very small proportion of the population.
It is extremely easy to comply with the conclusion that the allowance should not apply to more than one-fiftieth of the total population. That is inserted to guard against any future genetic danger when we are living in an age when nuclear energy is universally employed in this country.
Next we come to the dose level for the population. The Report states that for genetic purposes the limit should be an extra dose of twice the natural background. I want to reinforce that, because the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) quoted a rather abbreviated report from The Times of a speech by Sir Ernest Rock Carling which the right hon. Lady thought made it appear that we are in some greater danger of breaking the rule in conclusion 3.
The position at the moment is that a normal average person up to the age of 36 accumulates 3 roentgens, and conclusion 3 says that there must not be more than 6 extra roentgens, making a maximum permissible limit of 9 roentgens. The evidence in the Report shows that at the moment the total amount of man-made radiation is 27 per cent. of the natural background, and therefore there is still a very large safety limit between the 27 per cent. of natural background and the 200 per cent. which would be the limit under conclusion 3. That is the position at the moment, and it is important to get it into perspective. In all these matters, it is very unwise either to exaggerate or to minimise the dangers. What this country wants to do is to appreciate exactly what this Report says without undue exaggeration or undue complacency.
Now I come to the very difficult problem of fall-out, and it is very important that we should get this in its correct perspective. There are two aspects of the dangers from fall-out. One is the hazards from external radiation. The position is that the present external radiation from all fall-out is less than 1 per cent. of the natural radiation.

Dr. Stross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree that that is the figure for us in these islands, not for the world as a whole?

Mr. Turton: I did point out earlier that at the same time as this Committee was carrying out its investigations, a similar committee was carrying out investigations in the United States. I have said that broadly the conclusions formed by both the American and the British investigations are similar. It is a fact that, in the opinion of this Committee—which I know the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) realises was composed of the most distinguished scientists and doctors on this subject we have in this country—at the moment the external radiation is in fact smaller than radiations coming from all the luminous wrist watches in this country.

Dr. Summerskill: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) is an absolutely valid one. The Minister is trying to limit his remarks to national


frontiers. I thought it was quite clear from what I said and from what I quoted that the effects of fall-out cannot be limited to national frontiers because fall-out will be blown all over the world.

Dr. Stross: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers my right hon. Friend, may I beg him to believe that I would not dream of denigrating the very eminent scientists who compiled this Report and the one published in the United States. All I say, as I said in my speech, is that in this country, and no doubt in North America also, there is better protection in our houses. We do not live out-of-doors as much as other peoples in other countries who have very frail insubstantial houses to protect them.

Mr. Turton: In reply to the right hon. Lady, of course I accept that fall-out falls all over the world, and it is a level fall-out. Therefore the conclusion of this Committee applies to fall-out not only in this country but elsewhere. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that we live in houses where we are protected from some of this radiation. As we have seen from the newspapers today, there is a greater peculiarity in Aberdeen than has been noticed before. There is 15 per cent. more radiation among Aberdonians than in other parts of the country. That is because of the granite subsoil. In other parts of the country, there will be very small variations due to differences in the soil, and, no doubt, because of the habits of the population. Generally the Committee has told us that, so far as external radiation is concerned, the danger from diagnostic X-rays is 22 times greater than that from the fall-out from experiments; but they point out—this it seems to me is the greater danger—the question of radioactive strontium.
The right hon. Lady chided me, as is not unusual on her part, for undue complacency when last week she made a somewhat surprising quotation from this Report. She said:
if bombs are dropped in the next thirty years at the same rate as they are now being dropped, the effect of strontium on the bone structure would be very serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 12.]
She said that was what the Report recommended. I thought it was unwise at that moment to challenge the right hon.

Lady to get it correct. I knew that we were to have a debate shortly, and I thought it would be better if I quoted in the debate exactly what the position is. It is stated in the Report as follows:
… if the rate of firing increases and particularly if greater numbers of thermo-nuclear weapons are used, we could, within the life-time of some now living,"—
not thirty years; they talk about eighty years—
be approaching levels at which ill-effects might be produced in a small number of the population.
That is the extent of the danger. In other words, taking the maximum permissible amount of radioactive strontium at 1,000 units, as it is supposed to be, and the amount which is regarded as dangerous as 100 units, the amount so far attributable to the fall-out from all these tests is one unit. That is stated in this Report, founded on scientific evidence, and that is the extent of the danger. Certainly if the rate of firing increased, that danger would grow greater.
May I deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has explained to me that he cannot be in the Chamber to hear my reply. It may be valuable for the record if I answer the point he made about the fall-out in respect of strontium 90 not being a level fall-out. He instanced the example of the Welsh mountain sheep. I am advised that that is no evidence of any irregularity in fall-out. In the case of the Welsh mountain sheep, there is a very long grazing cycle. The grass grows very slowly and the amount of strontium 90 in the grass on the Welsh mountains is greater than in other grasses on flat country, which are eaten more quickly, thus preventing the strontium from accumulating to the same extent. That example is no evidence of any disparity in the fall-out. As far as evidence is obtainable, the fall-out in strontium 90 is reasonably level throughout the country.

Dr. Summerskill: Some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are based on the assumption that the rate of firing will not increase. Can he say whether it has increased since the Report was written? His argument is valid only if he can say that it has not. Has the rate of firing remained the same as when the Report was written, or has the rate increased during the last few weeks?

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Lady has missed the point. I was trying to correct a mis-statement which she made in the House last Monday when she misquoted the Report. I am trying to explain the Report to the House and to show the extent of the danger. The Report says that if the rate of firing increases and if a greater equivalent of T.N.T. is used in the explosions, then there will be a danger occurring in about eighty years.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? None of this is valid. I have quoted this myself, and he has told me nothing new. I quoted it in my opening speech in order to show the House that I was fully alive to precisely what strontium did. The Report says:
… if the rate of firing increases and particularly if greater numbers of thermo-nuclear weapons are used, we could, within the life-time of some now living, be approaching levels at which ill-effects might be produced in a small number of the population.
He has now argued, "Well, this really means nothing. It means, perhaps, in the next fifty years or so." His argument is only valid if the rate has not increased since this was written. If it has increased—and I quoted the increase—if it has increased during the last few weeks, his argument is not valid. Surely, that is plain.

Mr. Turton: I think the right hon. Lady is under a misunderstanding there. The Committee is talking not of a rate of fire over any one week or period of weeks, but of a rate of fire over a period of years. I am not trying to minimise the danger, or arguing that it is less than the Report has stated. In regard to strontium 90, the Report says that if the rate of fire increases, then, in some eighty years' time, there might well be a danger in this respect.
What the Government have done about this is as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated.
… Her Majesty's Government are prepared to discuss methods of regulating and limiting test explosions which take account of their own position as well as that of other Powers.
Specific proposals for the limitation and eventual prohibition, under proper control, of test explosions, were, in fact, an integral part of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee's plan which was put forward on Anglo-French initiative on 19th March.
The House will recall that that working document provided, in the first stage, for the establishment of a special branch of the control organ to supervise the limitation of nuclear test explosions. In the second stage, the limitation of those explosions comes into effect, and at the third stage there comes the prohibition, under control, of nuclear test explosions for military uses, although nuclear explosions directed towards the application of atomic energy for peaceful purposes may take place under control, subject to the approval of an international scientific committee. At the same time there is the prohibition of the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
That is the proposal that Her Majesty's Government and representatives of the French Government have put before the United Nations Disarmament Committee. On Thursday last, the Prime Minister explained that we should prefer that such discussion
… should be pursued within the context of a comprehensive agreement on disarmament. For our part, however, we should not exclude other methods of discussion acceptable to those concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 590.]
The Government will do their best to see that progress is made in this matter. That is the position on this danger from fall-out which is mentioned in conclusions 4 (a) and (b) of the Report.
In conclusion No. 5, the Committee dealt with the dangers arising from radiation, both medical and industrial. My hon. Friends the Members for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and for Abingdon asked me what action the Government were taking in this regard. So far as industry, other than the hospitals, is concerned, firms using radioactive isotopes are visited by the Factory Inspectorate to ensure that precautions are adequate, and an advisory booklet, "Precautions in the Use of Isonising Radiations in Industry" has been issued.
It was in 1947 that regulations were made under the Factories Acts to protect the workers in factories using luminous compounds. More general regulations covering other uses of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus in factories are in draft, and are being discussed with the experts concerned. I understand from my right hon. Friend that these regulations will be published early in the New Year.
Occupational hazards in medicine arise amongst those employed in hospitals on X-ray diagnostic and therapeutic work and in using radioactive substances. The standards of protection were drawn up by the British X-ray and Radium Protection Committee, which was set up in 1921, and periodically its recommendations have been revised by preceeding Ministers of Health on the advice of the committee.
The Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Darwin, has now prepared a comprehensive code of practice for use in National Health Service hospitals. This is undergoing final revision and, as I told the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), it is being issued shortly. But it is important that we should now consider whether that code should be modified or supplemented in the light of the Report of the Medical Research Council. Therefore, that matter is now being referred to the Advisory Committee for consideration.
To assist in carrying out the code as well as to assist in applying existing protective measures both in hospitals and in industry, a Radiological Protection Service has been set up by the Ministry of Health and the Medical Research Council, and that is continuing and extending the work carried out for many years by the National Physical Laboratory. Therefore, the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is that we will see that that is carried out by the Radiological Protection Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Am I to understand that this committee which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to set up is going to carry out some investigations and a regular survey in hospitals to make sure that the practice everywhere is up to a proper standard?

Mr. Turton: I am not setting up a committee. There is a Radiological Protection Service which sees that the code of practice is duly carried out. That is also an obligation on my Department as well.
The important part of these conclusions deals with the recommendation that the present practice in diagnostic radiology should be reviewed and that the use of radio-therapy in non-malignant condition should be critically examined. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central

pointed out, the Committee says that the contribution from this source is 20 per cent. of the natural background, but, as he points out—and I wish to emphasise this—the Committee was drawing particular attention to X-rays of the pelvis and the lumbar region, and the effect of X-rays of the chest, with mass miniature radiography, is very small.
These are essentially clinical matters which must be considered and advice given by representatives of the medical and dental professions for the benefit of all their colleagues. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government have decided to appoint as soon as possible a special committee composed of scientists and professional men to review these questions and to make recommendations. The committee will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself after consulting the Royal Medical Colleges and Corporations, the British Medical and Dental Associations, the Faculties of Radiology and Dentistry and other professional bodies concerned. I am happy to be able to announce tonight that Lord Adrian has consented to be the Chairman of this Committee.
There followed in the Report a suggestion that irradiation from such sources as pedoscopes, luminous watches and clocks, and television apparatus, should be reduced as far as possible. The first of these is already under review by a panel of the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, and I am inviting the Committee also to review these other sources and to advise me on them as soon as possible. Finally, it is suggested that for future genetic studies it is essential to collect more detailed information when births, marriages and deaths are registered. Detailed recommendations will be discussed with the Registrar General.
Many important questions in this subject need further inquiry. The Report provides a firm basis for action, but, as stated in paragraph 14:
Much research on many broad fronts will be required.
The Committee is to re-assemble after the Summer Recess to consider and submit to the Medical Research Council its recommendations for future work. In recent years, the Medical Research Council has sponsored a substantial programme of research, including research on the genetic effects, for more than ten


years. Their present expenditure in this direction is about £400,000 a year.
Thanks to this work, in which the scientists in this country have set an example to the world, we have been brought to the threshold of knowledge. It is clear that a considerable expansion of this research in many directions will be needed if the potentialities of nuclear energy are to be exploited with confidence and safety. The Government regard this as a matter of high priority, and the House can rest assured that immediate action will be taken when the further recommendations are received.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about our contribution to international research, and whether he is fully seized of the importance of our playing a really full part in this matter?

Mr. Turton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, an international committee is at work at the present time and is being furnished with the Report that we are discussing today. The hon. Gentleman also knows that most of the leading men in this country on this subject are actually serving on that international committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations (Command Paper No. 9780).

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(REORGANISATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.)

9.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end to insert:
"and
(c) take steps to further the practical application of the results of scientific and of industrial research".
When the Bill was in Committee, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), raised the question whether the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is giving adequate practical effect to the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy that greater use ought to be made by Government Departments and research associations of the technique of development contracts so as to make sure that the results of research are quickly brought into use.
This Amendment is very widely drawn, so as to cover all development work and contracts however undertaken, whether leading to inventions or not. It implements my earlier undertaking to hon. Members that the Bill should make it clear beyond all doubt that the Department has important responsibilities in the stages of research between the laboratory and actual production. Whether or not we are doing enough at the moment is a matter of opinion, but it is one of the most important subjects which will, obviously, deserve and get the attention of the Research Council when it is formed.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of my hon. Friends, for moving to insert this form of words into the Bill, which makes it quite clear that part of the duties of the new Research


Council will be to take steps to further the practical application of the results of scientific and industrial research.
It would be churlish of me not to thank him, but, although one is not supposed to look gift horses in the mouth, I must examine this one's teeth rather more carefully. I am very much in favour of giving this Research Council the powers to do its work, but what I really want to know—and what I am quite certain the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell me—is what use it will make of those powers. I should have thought that it was not a matter of opinion as to whether we were doing enough at present. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks it is. I say it is a matter of fact that we are not doing enough.
One of the major troubles of British industry now is that we have so many firms of such a small size that they are quite incapable of employing scientists and technologists to any degree; they are, in many cases, not only incapable of absorbing the latest scientific and technical developments, but they do not even know that they exist. There is very great scope here for the Government to raise the "Second XI" of British industry to the standard of the "First XI".
There is no doubt about the "First XI"; it is doing first-class work in research and in the practical application of it. It is really almost beyond argument—and this is where so many of us feel such concern—that these small firms, those I call the "Second XI", are not, because of their size, able to take advantage of the opportunities which science is laying at their door.
This proposal, which writes into the Bill something which, I know, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me can already be done by the Research Council, gives the Government, if they are so minded, the opportunity of spreading among a wide range of small and medium-sized British firms the great benefits to be derived from science and technology today. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, before we leave this Amendment, tell us, if he can, what use they propose to make of that opportunity. We have a number of associations now which are doing quite useful work, in a minor way.
What we should like to see—and this was the object of our Amendment—is this work developed on a much bigger scale so that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research could, and indeed, would, become responsible for entering upon development in such a way that these many small and medium-sized firms, the greater part of British industry, could take up projects which are known to exist but which they have not the necessary technical resources to use.
That was our object in tabling our Amendment in Committee, which the Parliamentary Secretary has now accepted. I thank him for accepting the form of it and I now ask that we should know how much pressure there is to be behind the idea and how much will be done in this sphere. If we cannot get a very satisfactory reply, this is something that in the months and years ahead the House of Commons will have to fasten on in order constantly to press upon the Government the need for using their own resources to do this work.
It is fairly generally agreed—I think it was the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) who said this on Second Reading—that the Government will have to play an increasing part in research and development of this nature. If so, we must ask not only that the Government should formally accept the proposition that has been put forward, but that we should have a clear statement from them that there will be steam in this particular turbine.

Sir H. Linstead: I join with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in expressing appreciation of the inclusion of the two Amendments in the Bill. I am not certain, however, that I can follow the hon. Member in his suggestion that the Government have a responsibility in, I think he would almost have said, pressing this development upon smaller firms in industry. It seems to me that that goes beyond the duties of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and, indeed, beyond what it is reasonably practicable to expect the Government to do.

Mr. Callaghan: That depends on whether one believes in a laissez faire economy.

Sir H. Linstead: It seems to me that the Government's duty and the duty of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is to pick out likely pieces of research in the laboratory stage and then, if they are not being taken over by industry, to make certain that they are carried a stage further to the pilot or development stage at which their potentialities on a manufacturing level can be assessed. Beyond that, however, I hardly see that the Government can go. If industry has not the initiative and the vision to take on from that stage, so much the worse for industry.

Mr. Callaghan: And for Britain.

Sir H. Linstead: And for the country, I agree.
It may be that the Government have the opportunity of putting pressure upon nationalised industries or upon certain industries with which they have a close relation because of defence, but to say that a large number of small industries should be under pressure by the Government to take over from a certain stage seems to me to be wishful thinking. Although I join in the hopes which have been expressed that these powers will be fully used, I believe that the last stage from development onwards is a challenge to British industry rather than a challenge to the Government.

Mr. Ede: My worst fears about the future of British industry are confirmed by what the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has just said. Research has now reached the stage that only Governments or wealthy corporations can really indulge in it. The Government propose to spend substantial sums of money through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, on probing into things that in these days are quite beyond the financial and human resources of firms, except those of great magnitude.
We have got past the days when Priestley and Cavendish, with home-made apparatus, could carry out substantial experiments, which, after all, revolutionised the world into which they were born. Even Faraday and Davy and people of their generation were able to carry on their researches by their own financial strength and according to their human ingenuity. That era has gone. I.C.I. and

Lever Brothers and similar firms may be able to carry on research, but even the universities cannot carry it on now without substantial grants from the Government, and they accept those grants, though that, when I was first connected with a university, would have been regarded as a very dangerous thing for a university in this country to do.
I take it that the words of this Amendment mean that, when these results have been achieved, it will be part of the duty of the Research Council to bring the results of the research to the notice of firms and industries which will be able to apply them in the ordinary running of their businesses. To think that these things are to be published and that then it does not matter whether anybody takes them up or not!
As the hon. Member for Putney frankly said, in answer to an interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), so much the worse for the country if they do not. Yet if we are to believe what the Prime Minister said on Saturday, or to believe as much of it as some of us are willing to accept, the country is in far too parlous a condition in this matter, which may mean all the difference between success and failure in the future, to leave it to a body of directors of, say, a small firm in a back street in Putney to make up their minds whether to avail themselves of these results or not.
I hope that this Amendment will mean that the Research Council will feel itself charged with the duty of taking steps
to further the practical application of the results of scientific and industrial research.
The words are quite sufficient for me, if they are implemented, but what if the spirit expressed by the hon. Member for Putney prevails? I do not know what the spirit of the Government may be. I recollect that the hon. Gentleman defeated the Government on a Prayer about glass-ware, although he did not vote himself; but we saw to it. It may be that we shall have sometimes to press the Government to give more body to these words than the hon. Member for Putney is prepared to give them.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that these words really mean what they say. They are simple, and the meaning of them seems


to me to be perfectly clear, and I hope they mean that the Research Council will be charged with the duty of seeing that the discoveries it finances will be brought to the notice of the industry of the country, and that firms which are capable of applying them, and which are engaged in businesses in which they can be applied, will be pressed to take advantage of them, where they are likely to be of advantage to their trades and to the country.

Mr. Bevins: By leave of the House, I would reply to what has been said. I do not want at this late hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Late?"]—to become involved in a violent discussion of what the full signicance of the Amendment is, but I would assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that his object is very adequately covered by the words in Clause 1(3):
The Research Council shall he charged with … the dissemination of the results of such research …
Those words are emphasised by the Amendment.
9.45 p.m.
We had a long discussion in Committee on development work generally, an important aspect of the work of the D.S.I.R. I said then that the Department has been engaged on development work during the last few years. It has been in liaison with the research associations, which are autonomous bodies, and in certain cases has been seeing that development work does not overlap between the associations and the Department itself. I think that I am right in saying that in one or two cases development contracts have been given to industrial firms where the circumstances have been thought to be appropriate.
I give the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the assurance that the Government are very conscious indeed of the value of this sort of work. It is important not only that we ought to engage in pure and basic research, but ought to develop that research and get it across to industry and make a real impact upon it. It would not be appropriate at this stage to say how far this work will be developed in future. I say that not because I am shy about it or reluctant to talk about it; but simply because the Research Council which will be formed during the next few months will be

charged with a number of tasks and this will be one of the most important of them. It would be quite wrong for me, in my capacity, to hamstring that Council in any way.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman ask that the Council should devote a special section of its first report to the use that it makes of these powers?

Mr. Bevins: I will certainly convey that to my noble Friend.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
and in exercising their functions under this subsection the Research Council shall have regard, consistently with the national interest, to similar or related activities carried on by other persons".
The aim of the Amendment is quite simple. It is to ensure that there is effective co-ordination with other research work so as to avoid undesirable overlapping. I hope that the form of the Amendment will meet the point of view which was expressed by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) and others in Committee. The words
… consistently with the national interest …
have been put in because there may be circumstances—I put it no higher—where the national interest dictates that we should, as a Department, interest ourselves in a particular research even though others are engaged upon it. The great thing is to see that our programme should include what we consider to be in the national interest, having regard to what is going on in research elsewhere.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for devising a form of words to meet the criticisms made from this side of the Committee. I thank him for the intention that he is trying to carry out, but I am not at all happy that the result will be achieved by this method. This is better than nothing, but I do not regard it as doing what is necessary here. I had a feeling at one stage that perhaps the Amendment was an attempt to cut down the work of the D.S.I.R. if research was being done by private firms and industries outside, but from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said I gather that that is not so.
I had that in mind because of the illustration I gave of the work done on polymers in chemical research laboratories,


which was challenged by private industry working on similar lines. It was challenged not because private industry had a real desire to avoid overlapping, but because it did not want trade secrets to get out and be widely spread. I gather that that is not the intention of the Amendment and that the intention is to achieve some measure of co-ordination.
I cannot possibly imagine that we can secure co-ordination in this sphere as long as there is more than one authority among the Ministers responsible for this work. We have, as we well know today, a number of Ministers who are so responsible. There is, of course, the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Supply, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and there must be others.
There is at the moment about £235 million being spent on research this year. Of that total, D.S.I.R. is responsible for some £10 million. The great bulk of that expenditure is on the defence side. The Minister of Supply is perhaps the man who is more responsible for our research expenditure than any other single person in Britain today. I do not see how we can achieve co-ordination until the Government have bridged the gap which exists at the moment between the Service Departments, on the one hand, and the Civil Departments, on the other, notably D.S.I.R., the Medical Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and those other bodies who are interested in the civil side of research.
At the moment, the real difficulties that we have on this question of scientific co-ordination, at which this Amendment is directed, is not that the Services are uninterested in scientific development, but are absolutely obsessed with it. As Mr. James Conant has said, writing about the American Chiefs of Staff and their attitude to scientific research, "They get on their horses and gallop off in all directions at once."
I would not be surprised when we come to examine scientific research on our own defence side if we did not find much the same thing. That is where co-ordination is lacking. While I appreciate that this Amendment is an attempt to ensure that at least there is some liaison in this direction, nevertheless I think that the Government have to go further than they have gone. There has to be a real bridge here.

There has to be a senior Minister—to come back to my old King Charles's head—in this House, in my view, who has to be responsible for co-ordination and prosecution of our scientific and technological effort in this country. Meanwhile, this Amendment will have some effect in that someone in D.S.I.R. will have to ask someone in another Department what is going on; but I believe this job is too big and vital to Britain's interest to be left in this rather slipshod way and that this Government or the next Government will have to take up this question and organise our scientific and technological effort in such a way as to ensure, first, that there is no overlapping, secondly, that the Service Departments by default do not get too large a proportion of our effort and, thirdly, to increase the total amount of effort which we are putting into science and technology, which at the moment is totally inadequate.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: This Bill was given a Second Reading by the House on 20th June. It was examined by Standing Committee the week before last, and it is now in its concluding stages. This is very rapid progress, and I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides, particularly those hon. Members who served on Standing Committee A for their help and also for their criticisms, which have been most valuable.
The House does not often enjoy the opportunity of debating scientific matters of a civil character, and it may well be that because of the infrequency of such opportunities that the Second Reading debate ranged rather wide—rather like the speech which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has just made. I do not complain about that; it would not matter much if I did. I think it is fair to say that there is now very general agreement throughout the House on the main purpose of the Bill, namely, to strengthen the organisation of the Department so that it can carry out its task with the best possible results.
On the importance of that task I do not think there can be any dispute. It has been emphasised over and over again,


both on Second Reading and in Committee, that science and its application to industry are vitally important to our wellbeing and may be, indeed, to our economic survival. Nevertheless, it is the case that several hon. Members have questioned whether the replacement of the Advisory Council by the new Research Council will make very much difference in actual practice.
Precisely how much difference it is going to make is, of course, a matter which only experience will show. No doubt the composition of the new Council will be very similar to that of the present Advisory Council which it will replace. Speaking for myself, I do not think it can be suggested that an advisory body, however distinguished, is the same as a body which possesses executive powers. The new Council will have the duty of deciding upon and not merely advising upon the priorities and the balance of the Department's research programme as a whole. It will decide whether there are any new research tasks which the Department ought to undertake and whether any of its existing work should be expanded or, perhaps, tempered down.
In its second Report, which was published as a White Paper, the Jephcott Committee used a phrase now widely quoted. It said:
Much is started, but not enough is stopped. As a result, many of the programmes have become too diffused or too uneven in their quality.
I want to emphasise that one of the first duties, and, indeed, a continuing duty, of the new Research Council will be to pursue this recommendation. The intention is that the Council shall be so constituted that its members will, in practice, be able to give a good deal of time to it both collectively and as individuals with specialist responsibilities.
I should also like to emphasise that the duty of making sure that enough research work is stopped should not be regarded as something which is purely negative. On the contrary, it will ensure that the Department uses scientists and technologists, whose scarcity, after all, is one of our major problems at the present time, to the greatest possible advantage. The new Council will be taking major policy decisions which will call for all the wisdom and experience that it is capable of commanding.
Having said that, however, I ought to add that it is not the intention that the Council should become involved in the execution of the programmes, except in such broad aspects as the allocation of finance or of scientific manpower. The practical methods by which items in the programme are pursued will remain, as now, the responsibility of the directors at the research stations. I know the House will agree that this is important if scientific freedom and independence are to be preserved.
Perhaps I may here pay a small tribute on behalf of the Government to the present and former members of the Advisory Council. They have—

Mr. Ede: Why only a small tribute?

Mr. Bevins: I do not want to overstate it.
These gentlemen have done a splendid job over the years, and it is certainly no criticism of their work to say that it is now desirable in the circumstances of 1956 to make the change provided for in the Bill.
Before I conclude, I wish to say a very brief word on the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East on Second Reading, in Committee and again during the Report stage tonight. The complaint is that in a matter of this sort the Government ought to have a Minister, and preferably a senior Minister, speaking at this Box, a Minister invested with all the authority of being in charge of the Department whose work we are discussing tonight. I must remind the House that it is a long time since that was the position. I find that one has to go back to the early part of 1951 when there were certain changes in the Labour Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am afraid that I must remind the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that when the right hon. Gentleman was succeeded as Lord President of the Council—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think that that is in the Bill, and we are now on the Third Reading.

Mr. Bevins: I will not weary the House with the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but


perhaps I might add that the Minister at that time was in another place and his place in this Chamber was taken by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Therefore, whether we regard the precedent as a good one or a bad one, it was established not by my right hon. Friends but by the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I would end by expressing what I know is in the minds of all hon. Members who have taken an interest in the Bill by expressing our hope for the success of the Research Council when it is appointed—my noble Friend intends to set it up towards the autumn—and also by expressing our best wishes to Sir Ben Lockspeiser's successor, Professor Melville from Birmingham University. I am sure that both the Secretary of the Department and the members of the Research Council will do a very fine job of work. I am confident that the Bill will achieve a good deal more than perhaps some of us have felt during the last few weeks.
In conclusion, I am assured by my noble Friend that not only he himself but the members of the Research Council will bear very much in mind the criticisms and the constructive comments which have been made from both sides of the House during the various stages of the Bill.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous way in which he has met us throughout the course of the Bill. I hope he will feel that it has given him a taste for this work. If the Government care to promote him to become the senior Minister in charge of scientific research, my hon. Friends and I will take no exception to it. What we want is a senior Minister and not someone from outside the Department coming here and reading somebody else's words. That is all we want; that is all we ask for. I leave the matter at that.
I should like to make one or two comments on the Bill. Frankly, I am not persuaded by the Parliamentary Secretary's eloquence that this change will be of very great significance, that changing an advisory research council into a part-time executive Research Council comprised, so far as I can see, of mostly the same people, at any rate of very similar people, will make anything like a revolutionary

alteration in this sphere. I have the feeling that, in the words of an editorial in one of our scientific journals—I hope the House will forgive my accent—"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". I have the feeling that that is what will be the result of it.
However, my hon. Friends and I hope very much, because our scientific future is at stake, that this will be a substantial change and that it will result in much better control, in one sense, of the effort, but not in the matter of interference with the research directors, and that it will result in more power being attached to the Minister who is responsible for the subject. We certainly wish Sir Harry Jephcott and the members of the Research Council well, together with Professor Melville, when he takes over the post which has been held with such distinction by Sir Ben Lockspeiser.
I should like to say a word—I think shall be able to prove that it is in order—about the cuts which have been announced. Clause 3 of the Bill refers to the payments which have to be made for the work to be done. We were staggered to hear that the Government were proposing an economy cut of £150,000 in the current financial year's Estimate of the Department. It is absurd that a cut of this nature should be made in such an important Department. I and my hon. Friends very much regret that the Government are proposing to reduce the number of staff to be engaged, certain small grants for industrial research, certain grants for purchase of equipment and certain items concerned with the Geological Survey.
All these are to be cut down. We believe that the Government are making a profound mistake in tampering, in however small a degree, with the funds allocated to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. This is our lifeblood and investment in the future, and these derisory and contemptible cuts should be set alongside the paragraphs in the last Report of the Department which show that from every quarter and every department have come calls for additional resources. Apparently every department in the D.S.I.R., almost without exception, says that it is short of men, short of equipment, or short of both, and yet the Government, so far from maintaining the increases which


they had made, are now proposing to cut them.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that those cuts are coming at a time when we were told that there would be no cut in the Vote of D.S.I.R. I very much regret that this should have happened. Let me illustrate it by quoting from a very remarkable editorial in The Chemical Age.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not at all certain that the hon. Member is in order. Clause 3 provides machinery for the payment, but I do not think this is the occasion to deal with the amount.

Mr. Callaghan: I will not continue with that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will turn to that part of the Bill which deals with the duty of the Council to disseminate information. If I cannot get in the point under expenses, I will deal with it under the duty to disseminate information.
In this month's issue of The Chemical Age—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will read it—is an editorial which deals with the Chemical Research Laboratory. We have asked, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that there should be a vast extension in the dissemination of information. I should like him to notice what is said in the editorial about the Chemical Research Laboratory:
Many outside requests for advice and information are received by CRL, and often the testing or investigations required involve subjects or techniques which arc no longer of research interest. Such work, therefore, would be of little mutual value to CRL and the inquiring firm. On corrosion problems alone the 1955 inquiries numbered 400 compared with 240 in 1954!
I leave out a sentence which is not material.
It is now the declared policy of CRL to refer such requests to private consultants through the Royal Institute of Chemistry.
Apparently, an exception is made if other Government Departments ask for help.
Here is obviously a void, a gap which is not being filled and which should be filled as I read the duty of the Department in the Bill. It is clearly reverting to an Amendment accepted during Report stage. Here is a rôle which the Department can easily fulfil, namely, acting as a sieve for these inquiries and helping smaller firms in British industry with the information which they need. That means

not a cut, but a substantial increase in its resources. As we all know, it has not the means, nor the money, to do that job at present.
I will end with a further quotation dealing with the inadequacy of the resources available to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The editorial in The Chemical Age refers to the disparity between staff devoting their time to atomic energy research and those devoting themselves to all other types of research in chemistry. Without going into the details, I will merely give the summary contained in that article:
In our view, fundamental research work on microbiology, on remedies for corrosion, on high polymers—cite only three selected fields of C.R.L. interest—must be conducted more expansively if the risk of missed opportunities is to be kept as low as possible. These are expansive fields of research—in two of them major processes of the industrial future are to be found, in the third there are great opportunities for reducing national wastes and loss.
We need to step up the effort of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I hope that the new Research Council will press on the Government very considerably the need for a substantial expansion of the resources that have been placed at its disposal.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised to hear, we do not intend to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Our aim is to strengthen the arm of the D.S.I.R., not to weaken it. The view of the Government is that their proposed organisational change will strengthen it. We certainly hope so. We wish the Department well and will try to assist it in the future.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to add only a few words to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Basically, I still have the misgivings I expressed on Second Reading of the Bill. I doubt whether the change from an advisory to an executive council will make much difference. As the Jephcott Committee said in its Report, which inspired this Bill,
A change of substance is often helped by a change of form".
But a change of form in itself will not produce any results. We merely hope that the change in form will produce the change of substance because, unless it does so, the whole object of the Bill will


have served no useful purpose. We on this side of the House were shocked when we heard recently about a cut in the Government's grant to the D.S.I.R. A much greater Government contribution is required for the activities of the Department.
If the debates we have had on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Third Reading have served no other purpose I think that they have served this valuable public purpose. They have directed public attention to the immense importance of this subject, which we have only too few opportunities to ventilate in this House. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that those concerned with the future of our national welfare are very much concerned about the inadequacy of the Government approach to the whole subject of the use of scientific manpower and the opportunities which exist for developing technological knowledge and scientific research both fundamental research and its application to practical problems.
It has emerged during these debates that as our natural resources as a nation dwindle we become more and more dependent on the efforts and energies of our manpower. In the next few years and in the long run our economic survival as a nation will very largely depend on the ways in which we direct responsibilities for using the vast preserves of scientific manpower of the country.
As I have said, I view with some misgiving the mere change of an advisory council into an executive council, particularly when we learn that in all probability the composition of that council will remain much the same as in the past few years. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the lessons to be learned both from the interim Jephcott Report, which has been published, and from the second Jephcott Report, which, unfortunately, has not been published.
The Report which has been published reveals among those best entitled to form an opinion a state of profound disquiet and disturbance about the activities of this Department in recent years. It is a healthy sign that at any rate something is being done about it but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, and as others of my hon. Friends stressed on Second Reading and

in Committee, we on this side of the House feel a particular sense of urgency in this matter.
We are convinced of the all-important necessity of using our reserves of technological manpower and of seeing that all opportunities of scientific research and scientific knowledge are exploited to the full. We believe that this objective can be secured only if far greater publicity is given to this matter than has been given in the past.
These debates have served some purpose. The Reports of the Department are not nearly as widely known as they should be. The Government's failure to publish a final Jephcott Report is a policy of secrecy and of silence which, I believe, renders profound disservice to our national interests, because if anything is needed it is the widest possible dissemination of information on the research which is being done not only in chemistry, physics and geology but in every other aspect of science.
We have learned from these debates of the preponderent efforts which have been made in recent years in nuclear energy. No one regrets that or criticises it; in fact, I think we all take pride in the immense achievement which this nation has made in nuclear energy, but I think it is a valid criticism that that progress and those achievements have been made at the expense of comparable progress which could have been made elsewhere and that work elsewhere has to some extent been starved by the Government's failure to make adequate financial resources available for that purpose.
There is a conflict between the interests of academic science and the interests of business, of which a number of illustrations have been given, not only in polymers but in many other matters, where there is a conflict between the academic interests, which are concerned to pursue scientific knowledge and progress for their own sake, and the interests of industrialists who, as experience has shown, are sometimes anxious, in their own interests, to hold up progress.
Notwithstanding our misgivings, we all very much hope that the effect of the Bill will be to secure a much greater liaison between those conflicting interests and to see, at any rate, that the national interest is placed above all.
I should like to conclude by emphasising what may hon. Friend has said and what others of my hon. Friends have stressed—that we believe that the best results here will be achieved only if we have regular and frequent opportunities in the House of interrogating the Government about the decisions being taken by this new Council.
For that reason we believe it vitally important that there should be a senior Minister in the House able to deal with this question and able, as a result of firsthand and immediate contact with the Council, to give the House information; and, secondly—and this is equally important—able to impart to the efforts of the Research Council the drive and energy and sense of vital national importance that is necessary if we are to get the best results and to obtain all that can be obtained from our great potentialities in scientific progress and advancement.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: As one who, since he has been in this House, has been one of the small number who has tried to make the House and the country aware of the importance of a scientific basis for our industrial structure, and as one who has taken some small part in seeing this Bill through the House and the Committee, I should like to say just a few words before we part with it.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary feels that the hours he has spent on this Bill have been worth while. I think he will admit that he has learned quite a lot about the subject, which may help him in the future debates which I hope we shall have on this subject, if we do not get the senior Minister for whom we are asking or if he himself should become the senior Minister whom we should like to see in charge. I should like to add my welcome to Professor Melville in his new position as secretary of the D.S.I.R. and to Sir Harry Jephcott, whom, I understand, it is the Government's intention to appoint as first chairman of the Research Council.
I do not want again to pursue the question of whether or not there is a change in actual practice. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman of what we said during the Committee stage about the operations of the Council; that it will not

be able to operate unless it has an adequate headquarters staff, adequately paid, with adequate chances of promotion and adequate seniority. If the job of planning civil research is to be done properly, it may be supervised by the Council, but the actual planning must be done by the staff. If there are to be reductions in the staffing of headquarters. I think that the change would be no change at all, because the possibility of the Council really exercising any proper supervision will be negligible.

Mr. Bevins: Perhaps I may reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no cuts whatever in headquarters staffs.

Mr. Albu: I am very glad to hear it, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary looks into the question of whether the present headquarters staff is adequate for the increased burden that would be placed on the top levels of the Department if it is to do the job. After all, the new Council is not to be judged by what it stops but by what it starts and gets finished. The Jephcott Committee Report referred to what should be stopped. We are not so much interested in that. We are interested, of course, that there shall be no waste, but we are much more interested in what is to happen in the future and what expansion is to take place. It is on those grounds that we on this side have been made extremely anxious by the fact that after the Bill had been introduced by the Government in another place these cuts, amounting to £150,000, should be made in the appropriation—and £33,000 of that was reduction of staff.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said, one of the problems which the Council has to face is that so much of the money that is devoted by the Government to research purposes is either for defence uses or else for what I might call the glamour industries—aircraft, nuclear electronics and so forth. On the other hand, we know that practically every industry, even some of the old traditional industries, could do with a great deal more research effort. There is serious danger in rushing into all the new glamorous fields of research which attract so many of the young men from the universities and other places and neglecting the very substantial increases that might be derived from research in


the more traditional and basic industries—substantial increases in productivity output, methods, etc., which are extremely important for our economy.
May I give one warning to the hon. Gentleman—or perhaps may I give him this advice if he has anything to do with resisting further cuts which may be made in the work of the Department. It is very easy for the Treasury to make cuts at certain levels—for instance, among technicians, typists, laboratory assistants and so on—but, of course there is a multiplied effect here. If we cut out the assistance to the higher-powered scientific workers, we greatly reduce their efficiency in the work that they can do. It is a very easy way of making reductions in expenditure, but its effects are not just the effects of the cuts which are made. We have to realise that there are the multiplied effects in the reduction of the efficiency of the more high-powered scientific workers.
It is very important indeed that if we are short of the best scientific brain power, as we are and as every country in the world is at the present time, we should not make ourselves even shorter by starving them of the technical, laboratory and typing assistance without which they cannot do their best work. It is extremely important for the Council to watch that this sort of cut is not made.
My hon. Friends have referred to the extreme importance of the passing on of information. We all know that this is one of the most difficult problems that scientific research organisations face at the moment. Some of my hon. Friends have made some criticisms of the attitude of some private firms towards the disclosure of research, but that does not mean that we do not want the closest collaboration between D.S.I.R. and industry. We are well aware that the money that is going to be spent—and we hope that more money will be spent in the future—will be entirely wasted if this work is not carried out in the closest collaboration with industry so that industry takes up

the results of research as quickly as possible and translates it into economic effect.
This is the original purpose for which D.S.I.R. was set up. Its function has since been extended, and in this Bill we confirm that it has the function of supporting fundamental research in the universities, even now to the extent of advanced scientific instruction. This is a new and important function of the Department. All these things are tied up together and they must go forward together.
I wish that we could have far more debates on this matter. We wish there were far more hon. Members present during the Second Reading of the Bill and on this occasion. We hope that the Government will give time in the future to discuss these very important matters. It is part of the Government's function to create an interest and an excitement in these subjects, not only on this but on technical education as well, and indeed the whole field of scientific progress. We all realise that our whole future depends on this question, but too many people pay lip service to it and are not prepared to do very much about it. The Government should devote more and more of their resources to this sort of function, and they should do everything possible to encourage more people to undertake these sorts of scientific activities.
We thank the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for the courtesy with which he treated us in Committee. One or two small Amendments have been accepted, and one or two have been brought forward by him in response to our request. However, I do not think that the form of the Bill or of the Amendments is what really matters. What really matters is the spirit behind the Bill. It is by the spirit in which this new Council works that we shall judge the Government's intentions in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BREAD (PRICES AND QUALITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Tonight I wish to raise a matter which is of interest to every man, woman and child, though I agree that it is not one which the well-to-do will bother very much about. It is the millions of lower income groups who will be deeply disturbed about the policy which has been suggested in connection with Britain's bread. Because of it, people with large families and the old-age pensioners will have a very big burden to bear. There is evidence to suggest that the Government have not acted in the public interest, and I believe and fear they will regret it. This is a case which clearly shows the need for a Ministry of Consumers' Welfare to ensure fair play for the public against vested interests.
I propose to divide my speech into two parts. The first is about the price which will rule when control and subsidies are ended on 29th September. The price, when it becomes known, will shock the community, and may have unpleasant results. Secondly, I hope to show that the Government, in their desire to get rid of the subsidy, have taken unjustifiable risks with the nutritive value of the loaf and, consequently, with the health of the people. In other words, I think there is substantial evidence to suggest that, to save the subsidy, the Government must bear the responsibility for foisting upon the public a sham loaf at a much higher price.
On Friday last, I was talking to a constituent, and that constituent has four children, and she said to me, "If the loaf goes up to 10d. my weekly bread bill will go up to £1 a week, and I really do not know what I shall do." I have seen the costings, and I think it is inevitable that the l¾ lb. loaf now selling at 8½d. will go up to 11d., or even to 1s., at one swoop.
This will make nonsense of the Prime Minister's appeals and of the Government's efforts to stabilise prices. I think it makes nonsense of the Prime Minister's

submission that it would be wrong at this time to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, a submission made on the ground that it would be harmful to the efforts being made to stabilise prices. If my assumption about the new price of the loaf is right, that will be infinitely more harmful to the efforts to stabilise prices than anything which might have been done to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament.
I took the opportunity this weekend to discuss the position with several bakers' roundsmen, and they told me from their knowledge that if the loaf went up to 10d.—and I think it will go up to 11d. or 1s.—that would involve a good deal of distress among many of their customers. There is no doubt that many people will have to reduce the amount of food of one sort or another which they can buy.
I conclude this part of my speech by asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to me, three questions. First, does his disagree with my prediction that the 1¾ lb. loaf after control will rise in price from 8½d. to 11d. or 1s.—or is his Department not concerned about what will happen? Secondly, did the Government take into consideration, in approving the change of policy, that the price would leap up in consequence? Third, if the Government did not anticipate such a substantial increase in price, and in view of the appeals to industry and the trade unions to keep prices down, will the matter be looked at again to obviate the creation of a situation which could have serious implications?

Sir David Gammans: The hon. Member suggests that bread will go up in price to 11d. or 1s. a loaf, without, so far as I can see, any proof of what he is saying, but would he not agree that in any case this matter is self-regulatory, because if some of the biggest bakers in this country, the co-operative societies, which are not out to make a profit, can produce bread cheaper, they will do so and corner all the trade?

Mr. Dodds: I do not think the hon. Member has listened to what I said. In the first place, I said that I had seen the costings which suggested that the price would be 11d, or 1s. Secondly,


one of the largest master bakers' organisations in the country has already recommended to its members that they should charge 1s. a loaf. Therefore, I think that I have answered both questions. It is inevitable from the costings that the price will be 11d. or 1s. If the food subsidies had been continued they would have had to be increased, and it is simple economics that the price of the loaf will be at least 11d., whether it is baked by one of the master bakers or by the co-operative society. I mentioned the woman with four children who will have a bread bill of £1 a week, but at least she will have a dividend from the co-operative society which she would not get from the other bakers, and that will be a saving.
I would draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what the newspapers were saying last week. A headline in one of them reads:
Government drive for a year of stability nears climax. 'Hold prices' call coming.
How can the Government ask the private or public sector to hold prices if the Government at one stroke increase the price of bread from 8½d. to 11d. or 1s.?
As to the quality of the bread, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give a better explanation than has been ever given by his right hon. Friend in reply to Questions in the House. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Cohen Panel. It is remarkable that that Panel's Report concludes with the words:
The conclusions reached by the Panel differ from those presented in their evidence by the Government's medical and scientific advisers and by the Medical Research Council. These advisers have been admirably zealous and eminently successful in guarding the nutritional well-being of all sections of the population and their scientific arguments have not been disproved.
Despite that, the Government turned down the recommendations of these advisers, who are world-famous, and the Minister has accepted something quite different.
Even the permanent medical advisers of the Ministry have been over-ruled, as has been the advice of the Medical Research Council, the British Medical Association and other weighty testimony. I appreciate that the Cohen Panel was composed

of famous scientists, and I appreciate the point made by the Minister that eighteen months ago there was such a conflict of evidence and advice by scientists about the nutritive value of flour that he felt disposed to set up the Cohen Committee.
The Panel's Report names the organisations that made representation to it. The British Medical Research Council submitted evidence and was strongly against the white loaf, even if it were fortified by the addition of synthetic vitamins. It was in favour of retaining the National loaf, which contained the natural virtues of the wheat. The Council urged greater caution in making changes which might lower the value of the nation's staple food.
The Minister, answering Questions on 18th June, showed that he is not certain yet about the quality of the bread which will be produced after 29th September, because he stated in col. 1040 that the Food Standards Committee had been invited to consider whether any more intensive regulations are required to protect the consumer. We should like to know whether there have been any developments, because 29th September is not far off and there is, I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, deep concern in many quarters about the new loaf which will be foisted on the public.
The Lancet declared in a leading article:
The nation is now returning to the familiar situation in which the people receive what it suits the millers to give them.
It goes on to say that the character of a staple food should not be changed until it is proved that the change does no harm. I submit that that has not yet been proved.
The millers have argued, and the Cohen Committee seems to accept it, that the people are well enough fed now for it not to matter much about the nutritional value of the daily bread. In fact, it is suggested that we should stop bothering about the constituents that have been milled out of flour since nobody quite knows yet what their importance to health really is.
We know that for white bread some of the most nutritive parts of the wheat are milled out and the offal which is taken away to feed animals fetches a better price. The proposal is to substitute three synthetic products of a


chemical factory for that part of the wheat which is taken out. We also know—the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny it—that these three synthetic products are not to replace all the ingredients that are taken out of the wheat. In other words, there is no evidence whether or not these ingredients are necessary to health, but they may be, and that suggests that a risk is being taken. Anyway, we know that the best of the wheat is to be taken out to be fed to animals, and human beings have to be content with synthetic substitutes. We also know that this method means better business for the millers.
I am sorry that I have not the time to give further details about the amount of bread eaten every year and the difference that 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. extraction makes. However, I should like to quote a few lines from a critic of substance. It sums up what many of us feel. He says:
The result is not a health loaf, it is a white-washed political loaf. More than that, it is a caricature of a loaf, de-natured, shorn of its bran, with its precious store of nature's best replaced by three synthetic products of a chemical factory.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: May we know the name of the critic of repute quoted by the hon. Member?

Mr. Dodds: It is Lord Hankey. The Minister has said that after 29th September people will have the choice of white bread or any other bread. They have already had that. As a consequence of agitation, it was decided in 1953 to introduce white bread, and it was a complete flop. It is shown that at the end of last year 99·2 per cent. of British households were buying National bread and only 0·8 per cent. were buying white bread. Therefore, we have had the opportunity and it has been a complete flop.
The National loaf has served us well for fourteen years. It is felt by many people—I could quote organisations—that the Government are taking a very big risk in introducing bread which will have taken out of it some of the qualities that are required. The price of bread will have a tremendous effect on any efforts to stabilise the cost of living.
As I want to give the Joint Parliamentary Secretary ample time to reply, I will forgo the rest of what I intended to say.

I hope that as a result of what has been said tonight and what has transpired since the Cohen Panel Report was made public that the Minister will think again before introducing something which all will regard as a retrograde step.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) is one of the most tenacious of hon. Members and he has lived up to his reputation tonight. He has put more into a speech of about sixteen minutes than most hon Members would have done, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who takes a bit of beating.
The hon. Member's speech tonight was under two distinct headings. The first I should describe as the good old party political one. He was trying to score points for his side and, in doing so, added his own touches of colour—and nobody does it better—to the myth that Government supporters enjoy increasing the cost of living of ordinary folk. That is not true, and everybody knows it. However, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends think it worthwhile to say that, and that is why they do so.
The hon. Member feels very sincerely on the subject of the nutritional value of the loaf, and he has pursued that subject with commendable consistency on the Floor of the House for many years. I shall treat that part of his speech seriously and try to give him a recapitulation of the history in order to give him some satisfaction on that score.
I think that I should deal with the good old party political part of his speech first. This is not the first time we have had these dismal prophecies about price levels which would follow decontrol. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that soon after the announcement of the proposed decontrol of eggs we were told that the price of eggs would be 1s., and some said even more than that. Today they are 4½d. We had the same sort of prophecy about butter. Every time we have had decontrol we have had these prognostications which have not been borne out by the facts.
I am surprised that time after time hon. Members opposite continue to pursue


that line of thought. It may be because they do not read the right sort of newspaper or the right sort of literature. On balance, I do not think they can say that they have earned a good reputation for prognostications in these topics, although I know that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has earned a reputation in other subjects for being able to forecast what might happen.

Mr. Dodds: One large branch of the National Association of Master Bakers has already recommended its members to charge 1s.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member gave that as evidence. I did not want to leave my point until I had drawn attention to the mistakes of hon. Members opposite in the past, because we cannot have this alarm and despondency on such slender evidence. Their dismal prognostications about what will follow the decontrol of the loaf may well be like the others.
The hon. Member has just said that one of the branches of the National Association of Master Bakers has suggested that the price of the 1¾ 1b. loaf may well be 1s. Having read that, he should have read what the National Association of Master Bakers, covering the whole country, said. It repudiated what its branch said and declared:
Talk of a 1s. National loaf when the bread subsidy comes off at the end of September is premature. It would be foolhardy to speculate on the price of the loaf until about mid-September, when there will be some idea of the price of flour …
The association, of course, knows that this is a highly competitive industry with small bakers, plant bakers and, as was pointed out, Co-operative bakers. We can count on those with all the efficiency and new techniques in the industry to play their part in seeing that the customer gets good value for his money.
I should say, in passing, that as far as the hon. Member's comments are a condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when the hon. Member made his general references to general price standards—I can say only that at the moment there are very clear signs that the Chancellor's methods are winning through. Over the last four months the gold reserves have gone up by about £63 million, and there has been

an improvement in the general balance of trade. It is well to remember that dispensing with 1½d. subsidy on a 1¾ 1bs. loaf will not be an extra cost on the community. It merely means that the public will be making the 1½d. contribution by way of purchases over the counter instead of by payments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that on his criticisms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Member is on really strong ground tonight.
I come to the second part of the speech of the hon. Member, and I know that he really meant what he said in that. I know the view he has taken on agene and other contributions he has made in the past. His view tonight appears to be that the Government ought not to have acted on the Report of the Cohen Panel. If one considers the history of this matter, I do not thing such a view is tenable. Those who study the history of what led up to the appointment of the Panel and its Report will agree that the Government have acted reasonably and properly on its recommendations.
It is well to remember that before the war the rate of extraction—which was not usually an issue—was then 70 per cent. to 72 per cent., with no nutrients added. It is interesting to note that one of the first who suggested that the loaf could be improved by the adding of nutrients was Professor Dodds, who is no relation of the hon. Member. He was interested on the millers' side and suggested this way of enriching bread.
During the war, because of shortage of wheat—it had nothing to do with nutrition—the extraction rate was raised to 80 per cent. That produced the near-white loaf, or as some called it, the "dirty-white" loaf. That contained "naturally" the level of nutrients considered acceptable by the experts. The loaf was not easy to bake, and in general appearance I do not think it was ever claimed to be the housewife's pin-up. Many people looked forward to the day when a loaf could be produced which would contain the essential nutrients and be more acceptable to the public.
Recognising that view, the Government—not this Government, but the Government immediately after the war—called the Conference on the Post-War Loaf. It was a conference of medical


and scientific opinion, the milling authorities and the authorities which the hon. Member has quoted. It was hoped that that conference would produce an agreed solution on which the Government could base their policy, but this hope was not realised. There were differences of view. One view has been quoted by the hon. Member, that of the medical and scientific advisers to the millers—not the millers themselves—who quoted medical and scientific opinion in the United States, which maintained that the same nutritional standard could be obtained while at the same time giving the public the sort of loaf which was wanted and which could be more easily produced by the baking industry.
At that stage neither side would budge, and the Government, which all along intended to be neutral, were not encouraged to lay down any permanent stabilised policy in anticipation of the day when wheat would become plentiful. In the next eight years there was still a shortage of wheat, and the high extraction rate remained. In 1953 there was no longer a great shortage, and the question was raised in a more acute form. The millers' scientific advisers said that the public demand for whiter bread could be met without injury to the health of the nation. The Government felt at that time that they should confine the bread subsidy to the high extraction loaf, but, as the hon. Member reminded us, they made it possible for a whiter loaf to be produced in which there was vitamin B1, nicotinic acid and iron partly in natural form and partly added.
It was believed at that time that the 80 per cent. extraction rate of what we call the National loaf could be maintained by a provision in the Flour and Bread Orders, 1953, to the effect that the 80 per cent. extraction should be maintained. But this is the important point that has been overlooked by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. It was found in practice that the extraction rate of National flour was progressively lowered because it was quite impossible to establish the precise extraction rate by any experimental means. Therefore, the Government could not stop the decline by using the force of law.
We had laid down by Order that the extraction rate should be 80 per cent., and then it was found that there was no way of confirming that the 80 per cent. extraction rate was being maintained. The hon. Gentleman criticised to some extent the fact that National flour contained a lower proportion of the essential ingredients than was good for health and even lower than the white loaf. The Government have said that they are primarily interested in the nutritious element, and when it was shown that the nutritional level of the National loaf, which was being consumed by the overwhelming majority of the people, was not as high as was wanted, and not as high as the white loaf, they felt that they should do something about it.
Legislatively the remedy could not be an enforcement of the 80 per cent. extraction, but it was possible to have the nutritional standard of bread examined and proved. The Government were faced with a conflict of expert opinion, and they had to make a decision. They decided that the right thing to do was to put the matter before an inquiry where we could be quite certain that the matter would be fully and impartially investigated.
I do not think anybody could say that the Government were anything but sincere in attempting to settle this conflict. The people who were eventually chosen to conduct the inquiry would have passed the most meticulous test as to their integrity and professional qualifications. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that, because the panel was not chosen by the Government. The Government invited the President of the Royal Society, Lord Adrian, who is himself an eminent biologist, to nominate the members. He did so, and nothing could be fairer than that.
The panel was appointed, and it really was an eminent panel, whose qualifications and integrity could not be questioned. They took a terrific amount of oral and written evidence. If we read their Report, we find that they had evidence from all over the world and they read reports that had been issued in many countries where this subject had been examined.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a conflict of view put in front of this Panel, between the Medical Research Council and the advisers of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other, the advice of the scientific and medical advisers who were supporting the case for the millers and others interested. I do not think it can be established that all of the medical evidence was against the eventual Report of this Panel, which was that we ought to see that National bread is up to the nutritional standard by having these nutrients added.
It cannot be established that the medical evidence was against that, when one looks at the qualifications of the Panel. This Panel of scientists heard the evidence of the Medical Research Council and other evidence. In the end, the Panel recommended that the Government

should accept the situation in which it would be satisfactory to have a loaf where the nutrients were added and where it could be shown by test that those nutrients were there.
This decision, which has been accepted by the Government—and it would have been difficult for the Government not to have paid great heed to what this expert Panel reported after such a careful examination of the facts—will not prevent the high extraction loaf being baked if there is a public demand for it.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.